1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The deceased K (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on November 21, 2012, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants are legal successors of the deceased.

B. On April 24, 2005, the Deceased: (a) on April 24, 2005, signed and sealed the full text, date, and name of the testament of the following contents.

김포시 L 논, 畓(답) 4,980의2 1030평 아부지 K(망인)가 A(원고) 앞으로 등기이전, 소유권을 이전한다.

Provided, That under the conditions of the foregoing, all of the life of the baby site shall be responsible for all of his/her husband and wife after moving into the building site.

Management shall be managed.

Clerks A with K signature and seal on April 24, 2005

C. The Defendants are the inheritors of the deceased, who are obligated to perform the testamentary gift according to the above will. Since they dispute the existence or validity of a will, the Plaintiff has the interest to seek confirmation that the will is valid against the Defendants, as stated in the purport of the claim.

2. On April 24, 2005, we examine whether the deceased’s will was made based on his/her own document by making himself/herself write his/her full name and the full name and sealing of the above contents.

Article 1065 through 1070 of the Civil Act provides strict 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 authentic will of the testator.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da57899 Decided March 9, 2006, etc.). Accordingly, a will based on a self-certificate shall be effective only when the testator has affixed his/her full full text, date, address, and name and affixed his/her seal pursuant to Article 1066(1) of the Civil Act. If the testator did not have his/her address, it shall not be denied the validity of a will contrary to the legal requirements and method, and it shall not be viewed otherwise on the ground that the testator does not interfere with the designation of the testator.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da71688 Decided September 26, 2014). “A” in Articles 1 through 1.