The Defendant’s appeal against the Intervenor is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment by this court as to the argument of the Intervenor joining the Defendant under paragraph (2) of this Article, and thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The abbreviation of this court’s additional judgment is based on the judgment of the court of first instance.

A. The Defendant’s Intervenor’s argument in 2007 will authentication is null and void for the following reasons.

1) 2007년 작성 증서 제688호 유언공정증서에 망 G가 주소 등을 자서(自書)하지 않은 공증촉탁서와 망 G 이름이 “S”이라고 잘못 적혀있는 위조 매매계약서가 첨부되어 있고, 위 유언공정증서 본문에도 망 G 이름이 “S”이라고 잘못 기재되어 있다. 이를 보면, 2007년 유언공정증서는 민법 제1068조에 정해진 유언자의 구수(口授)와 공증인의 낭독이 없었던 것을 알 수 있다. 2) 망 G는 2007년 유언공정증서를 작성할 때 의사능력이 없었다.

B. As to whether the requirements under Article 1068 of the Civil Code of 2007 of a testamentary notarial deed are not met, even if the fact that the deceased did not have the deceased's domicile, this is limited to the documents attached to the testamentary notarial deed, and at least the fact that the deceased G has signed in the written notarial deed (Article 11 and No. 19 of the No. 19 of the will and the purport of the whole pleadings) is recognized (Article 10 of the Civil Code of 2007). It seems that the fact that the deceased G sells the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OO P apartment which he own to Y on July 30, 2007, and it cannot be concluded that the above sales contract was forged solely on the ground that the net G was written in writing in the sales contract attached to the notarial deed No. 688 of the 2007 notarial deed.

3 Although the net G name is mistakenly stated in the will document No. 688 of 2007, the notary public reported the above sales contract in writing.