1. On June 21, 2019, the Seoul Family Court affixed a seal of approval on the case where a testamentary document was approved on June 21, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C is the husband of the deceased E (the deceased on February 13, 2019, hereinafter “the deceased”), and the Plaintiffs and Defendant D are the children of Defendant C and the deceased.

B. On March 15, 2018, the Deceased left a written testamentary document (hereinafter “instant testamentary document”). As the Deceased died, the Plaintiff filed an application for approval of the instant testamentary document. On June 21, 2019, the Seoul Family Court investigated the original of the instant testamentary document at the date of autopsy conducted on June 21, 2019.

C. On the above date, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants (including their agents) appeared, and the Defendants stated to the effect that “The body body of the deceased as stated in the instant testamentary document was different from the body body of a usual lawsuit, and the deceased aggravated health around March 15, 2018, it is doubtful as to whether the capacity of the deceased was normal.”

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers if there is a tentative number); hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the testamentary document of this case is valid as it is based on the deceased's own pen, and that it is necessary to confirm that the Defendants asserted its validity.

B. The Defendants asserted that the instant testamentary document was prepared in a state where the deceased had no normal recognition ability in light of ① the writing on the instant testamentary document appears not to be identical to the body of the deceased, ② the state of health of the deceased rapidly aggravated around March 15, 2018, and Defendant C, the husband of the deceased, is not a donee on the instant testamentary document, etc.

3. Determination

A. According to the description and shape of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the result of the written appraisal by appraiser F, according to the whole purport of the pleadings, the writing and the penology of the deceased are the same, and the testamentary document of this case is the expertise and date of the will.