beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
Articles 1065 through 1070 of the Civil Act stipulate strictly the method of a will with the intention to clarify the will of the testator and prevent legal disputes and confusion arising therefrom. Thus, a will contrary to the legal requirements and methods cannot be null and void even if it conforms to the true will of the testator.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da17800, Sept. 3, 1999; 2005Da57899, Mar. 9, 2006). Therefore, a will based on a self-certificate is effective only when the testator has affixed his/her full text, date, address, and name and affixed his/her seal pursuant to Article 1066(1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, if the testator did not have a domicile, it cannot be denied its validity as a will inconsistent with the statutory requirements and method, and it does not change on the ground that there is no obstacle to the identity of the testator.
According to the records, although the English address of "Seoul Seocho-gu E building" is written in the letter of the instant will, it is not the part of the network C, but the full text of the instant will of this case, which is written by the network C, with multiple lot numbers, it is difficult to view the location and content of each lot number as stating the parcel number of the real estate subject to a will, and it is difficult for the network C to regard the location and content of each lot number as the location and content of the will, and there is no indication that the network C did not have any indication to regard it as its address.
Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the will of the deceased C by the will of this case is invalid as it goes against the legal requirements and methods due to the omission of the address.
Nevertheless, it is deemed that the will of the deceased C by the will of this case is valid, and part of the plaintiff's claim is accepted.