Where a testator fails to write an address while making a will by a written document with a certificate of completion, the validity of the will and the method of indicating an address required by the testator.

Articles 1065 through 1070 of the Civil Act stipulate strictly the method of will to clarify the will of the testator and prevent any legal dispute and confusion arising therefrom. Thus, a will contrary to the statutory requirements and methods is null and void even if it conforms to the authentic will of the testator. Therefore, a will contrary to the statutory requirements and methods is effective only if the testator has affixed his/her full name and affixed his/her full name and affixed his/her seal pursuant to Article 1066(1) of the Civil Act. If the testator does not have his/her address, it shall not be denied the validity of the will contrary to the statutory requirements and methods, and it shall not be different because the testator does not interfere with the identity of the testator. Here, the address necessary for him/her is not necessarily required to be registered under the Resident Registration Act, but at least it must have an indication to the extent that it is distinguishable from another place as a basis for living as prescribed in Article 18 of the Civil Act.

Article 1066(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 98Da17800 Decided September 3, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 2015) Supreme Court Decision 2005Da57899 Decided March 9, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 586)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorneys Go-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Initial, Attorney Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Na28303 decided July 19, 2012

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Articles 1065 through 1070 of the Civil Act stipulate strictly the method of a will to clarify the will of the testator and prevent legal disputes and confusion arising therefrom. Thus, a will contrary to the statutory requirements and methods may not be null and void even if it conforms to the testator’s genuine will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da17800, Sept. 3, 1999; 2005Da57899, Mar. 9, 2006). Therefore, a will by a self-written document shall have the same effect as a testator’s full full name, date, address, and name, and affixed with the seal. If the testator did not have the domicile, it cannot be denied the validity of the will as a will contrary to the legal requirements and method, and it may not be deemed that there is no need to establish a different address as a part of the testator under Article 1066(1) of the Civil Act.

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following facts.

Around November 2, 2005, the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “the deceased”) drafted a will letter (hereinafter referred to as the “the will letter of this case”) stating, “I will letter that I will hand all the property to the Plaintiff (such as Hannam-gu's House, etc.) and will leave this to eliminate the imperiment between children after the fact.”

The Deceased, at the end of the testament of this case, signed and sealed the date of preparation (No. 2, 2005), resident registration number, and name (no. 1). The Deceased stated “Cambadong” next to the date of preparation.

From October 13, 2005 to September 6, 2008, the Deceased was registered as a resident on the first floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, around August 2007, the Deceased leased the instant real estate to Nonparty 2, and the Deceased had established the right to lease on a deposit basis in the instant real estate. Nonparty 2 made a move-in report on the instant real estate on August 13, 2007, and thereafter registered as a resident on the instant real estate.

On the other hand, on September 22, 2005, the Plaintiff resided in the above domicile until September 22, 2009 after completing the resident registration in Gangdong-gu Seoul (No. 202 omitted).

3. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the Deceased could be deemed to have resided in the Plaintiff’s above cancer address, such as the lower court’s approval, it is difficult to view that the Deceased’s part of the “Canceadong” stated in the instant will to be the basis of a living with an indication to the extent distinguishable from other addresses is difficult. Therefore, the instant will is invalid since the omission of the address’s self-written statement violates the legal requirements and methods.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the method and effect of a will based on a certificate of completion, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as it was made in conformity with the requirements stipulated in Article 1066(1) of the Civil Act by signing and sealing the deceased’s address, etc. on the testament of this case. The Defendant’s ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)