Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
Will by dictation and the objective impossibility of the other forms
Supreme Court, Apr. 2, 2026, 2024Da309430 (judgment)
Case name: 예금[구수증서에 의한 유언의 효력 유무가 문제 된 사안]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is a will taken by dictation under Article 1070(1) of the Civil Act valid where the witness put the testator's intended contents to the testator by questioning from a document prepared in advance by a third party, and what must be weighed in deciding whether illness or other urgent reasons made a handwritten, recording, notarial or sealed will impossible?
Holding
The Court answered that it is not, unless special circumstances apply. ‘Dictating the intent of the will’ means conveying its contents in words, so a will gathered by questioning the testator against a document a third party drafted in advance does not count unless it is plainly established that the document followed the testator's true intent. Article 1070(1) permits a will by dictation only where illness or other urgent reasons made the four other statutory forms objectively impossible, judged at the time the will was made, and the testator's subjective view alone does not open that door. The court must weigh the concrete content of the illness together with the testator's overall health, the degree of deterioration, the ability to move or write, the degree of impairment of breathing or articulation, whether the testator could state the whole contents, name and date, and whether a third party's help was needed or possible.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
증인이 제3자에 의하여 미리 작성된, 유언의 취지가 적혀 있는 서면에 따라 유언자에게 질문을 하고 유언자가 동작이나 간략한 답변으로 긍정하는 방식은, 유언 당시 유언자의 의사능력이나 유언에 이르게 된 경위 등에 비추어 그 서면이 유언자의 진의에 따라 작성되었음이 분명하다고 인정되는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 민법 제1070조의 ‘유언취지의 구수’에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
The manner in which a witness asks questions of the testator in accordance with a document prepared in advance by a third person setting out the purport of the will, and the testator affirms by gestures or brief answers, cannot be regarded as a "statement of the purport of a will" under Article 1070 of the Civil Act, absent special circumstances such as where, in light of the testator's capacity to make a judgment at the time of the will and the circumstances that led to the making of the will, it is clear that the document was prepared in accordance with the testator's true intention.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
유언자가 처한 ‘질병 기타 급박한 사유’의 구체적인 내용과 함께 유언자의 전반적인 건강 상태, 질병의 악화 정도, 거동이나 필기행위의 가능성, 호흡이나 발음기관에 나타난 장애의 정도, 유언자가 주도적으로 유언의 전체적인 내용과 성명, 연월일을 구술할 수 있었는지 여부, 제3자의 도움이 필요하거나 가능하였는지 여부 등을 종합적으로 고려하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
the specific details of the "urgent causes such as a disease" facing the testator, together with the testator's overall state of health, the degree of exacerbation of the disease, the possibility of movement or handwriting, the degree of impairment appearing in the respiratory or speech organs, whether the testator was able to take the lead in orally stating the entire content of the will, his or her name, and the year, month, and day, and whether the assistance of a third person was necessary or possible, must be comprehensively taken into account.
Factors
- 유언자가 처한 ‘질병 기타 급박한 사유’의 구체적인 내용과 함께
- 거동이나 필기행위의 가능성
- 호흡이나 발음기관에 나타난 장애의 정도
- 유언자가 주도적으로 유언의 전체적인 내용과 성명, 연월일을 구술할 수 있었는지 여부
- 제3자의 도움이 필요하거나 가능하였는지 여부
Unofficial English translation
• together with the specific details of the "urgent causes such as a disease" facing the testator,
• the possibility of movement or handwriting
• the degree of impairment appearing in the respiratory or speech organs
• whether the testator was able to take the lead in orally stating the entire content of the will, his or her name, and the year, month, and day
• whether the assistance of a third person was necessary or possible
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2006. 3. 9. 선고 2005다57899 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da57899 decided March 9, 2006
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1999. 9. 3. 선고 98다17800 판결(공1999하, 2015), 대법원 2006. 3. 9. 선고 2005다57899 판결(공2006상, 586)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
To what extent must the party claiming a valid will by dictation prove that the testator could not use a handwritten, recording, notarial or sealed will?
The remand judgment from the Seoul Central District Court, once it weighs the deceased's condition against each statutory form, will show how the comprehensive test is applied in practice. Any amendment to Articles 1065 to 1070 of the Civil Act, or a later Supreme Court decision on the will by dictation, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “To what extent must the party claiming a valid will by dictation prove that the testator could not use a handwritten, recording, notarial or sealed will?” vs Independent “Under the comprehensive assessment, was another statutory form of will objectively available to this testator?”
The primary asks how much proof the party asserting validity must provide, while the independent asks whether another statutory form was objectively available to this testator.
증인이 제3자에 의하여 미리 작성된, 유언의 취지가 적혀 있는 서면에 따라 유언자에게 질문을 하고 유언자가 동작이나 간략한 답변으로 긍정하는 방식은, 유언 당시 유언자의 의사능력이나 유언에 이르게 된 경위 등에 비추어 그 서면이 유언자의 진의에 따라 작성되었음이 분명하다고 인정되는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 민법 제1070조의 ‘유언취지의 구수’에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 31 October 2024 (2023Na74583), held that the deceased (Nonparty 1) appeared to have sufficiently recognised her own property, the meaning of the gift and the recipient and to have been able to speak, so it could not be said that she was unable to make a will by recording, and that the will therefore did not meet the requirements of a will by dictation under Article 1070(1). It also held that the video recorded by the witness showed no evidence that the deceased recited the date or that the participating witness confirmed the accuracy of the will and recited a name, so it had no effect as a will by recording either. The claim below was for KRW 96,005,752 deposited in the deceased's account, which the defendant refused to pay.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the finding that the video was not a valid will by recording. On the will by dictation it held the reading below unsustainable: the deceased was in the terminal stage of lung cancer with pneumonia, wore an oxygen respirator, could barely speak and could not continue freely, was isolated with COVID-19 and died three days after the will, so making a recording will was considerably difficult and other forms cannot be said to have been objectively possible. That she could recall the account numbers of only two of the three deposit claims showed capacity at the moment of dictation, and a video made as an aid to forestall disputes cannot itself show that another form could have been used, so the court below misread the supplementary nature of the will by dictation, reversed the judgment and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the will was gathered by questioning the testator from a document a third party had drafted in advance, where it is not plainly established that the document followed the testator's true intent.
- A case in which a handwritten, recording, notarial or sealed will was objectively possible for the testator at the time of the will, since Article 1070(1) reserves the will by dictation for the opposite case.
- A will lacking the statutory participation of at least two witnesses, a written reading-back, their confirmation of accuracy and each party's signature or seal.
Record verification notes
Set out the testator's condition day by day around the date of the will, including treatment, sedation, oxygen and isolation, since the Court weighed those facts against the possibility of every other form. Keep the two questions apart: whether another form was objectively possible at the time of the will, and whether the testator had capacity and dictated the contents. Do not rely on a recording or video of the dictation as proof that a recording will was possible, and check whether any document was drafted by a third party and what shows it followed the testator's intent.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 민법 제1065조 내지 제1070조가 유언의 방식을 엄격하게 규정한 취지 및 법정된 요건과 방식에 어긋난 유언의 효력(무효) / 민법 제1070조 제1항에서 정한 구수증서에 의한 유언의 요건 및 다른 방식에 의한 유언이 객관적으로 가능한 경우, 구수증서에 의한 유언이 허용되는지 여부(소극) [2] 민법 제1070조 제1항에서 정한 구수증서에 의한 유언에서 ‘질병 기타 급박한 사유로 인하여 자필증서, 녹음, 공정증서 및 비밀증서의 방식에 의할 수 없는 경우’에 해당하는지 판단할 때 고려하여야 할 사항
Unofficial English translation
[1] The purpose underlying Articles 1065 through 1070 of the Civil Act, which strictly prescribe the formalities of a will, and the effect (invalidity) of a will that fails to conform to the legally prescribed requirements and formalities / The requirements for a Will by Statement against a Written Document as provided in Article 1070 (1) of the Civil Act, and whether a Will by Statement against a Written Document is permitted where a will by another formality is objectively possible (negative) [2] Matters to be taken into account when determining whether the case falls under "inability to make a will by a holograph document, a recording, a notarial document or a sealed document due to urgent causes such as a disease" as provided in Article 1070 (1) of the Civil Act, in the case of a Will by Statement against a Written Document
Summary of the holding
[1] 민법 제1065조 내지 제1070조가 유언의 방식을 엄격하게 규정한 것은 유언자의 진의를 명확히 하고 그로 인한 법적 분쟁과 혼란을 예방하기 위한 것이므로, 법정된 요건과 방식에 어긋난 유언은 그것이 유언자의 진정한 의사에 합치하더라도 무효이다. 민법 제1070조 제1항의 구수증서에 의한 유언은 질병 기타 급박한 사유로 인하여 민법 제1066조 내지 제1069조에서 정한 자필증서, 녹음, 공정증서 및 비밀증서의 방식에 의할 수 없는 경우에 허용되며, 유언자가 2인 이상의 증인의 참여로 그 1인에게 유언의 취지를 구수하고, 그 구수를 받은 자가 이를 필기낭독하여 유언자의 증인이 그 정확함을 승인한 후 각자 서명 또는 기명날인하여야 한다. 여기서 ‘유언취지의 구수’라 함은 말로써 유언의 내용을 상대방에게 전달하는 것을 뜻하므로, 증인이 제3자에 의하여 미리 작성된, 유언의 취지가 적혀 있는 서면에 따라 유언자에게 질문을 하고 유언자가 동작이나 간략한 답변으로 긍정하는 방식은, 유언 당시 유언자의 의사능력이나 유언에 이르게 된 경위 등에 비추어 그 서면이 유언자의 진의에 따라 작성되었음이 분명하다고 인정되는 등의 특별한 사정이 없는 한 민법 제1070조의 ‘유언취지의 구수’에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다. 나아가 ‘질병 기타 급박한 사유’가 있는지 여부의 판단에서 유언자의 진의를 존중하기 위하여 유언자의 주관적 입장을 고려할 필요가 있을지 모르지만, 자필증서, 녹음, 공정증서 및 비밀증서의 방식에 의한 유언이 객관적으로 가능한 경우까지 구수증서에 의한 유언을 허용하여야 하는 것은 아니다. [2] 민법 제1070조 제1항의 구수증서에 의한 유언에서 ‘자필증서, 녹음, 공정증서 및 비밀증서의 방식에 의할 수 없는 경우’에 해당하는지 판단할 때에는, 유언자가 처한 ‘질병 기타 급박한 사유’의 구체적인 내용과 함께 유언자의 전반적인 건강 상태, 질병의 악화 정도, 거동이나 필기행위의 가능성, 호흡이나 발음기관에 나타난 장애의 정도, 유언자가 주도적으로 유언의 전체적인 내용과 성명, 연월일을 구술할 수 있었는지 여부, 제3자의 도움이 필요하거나 가능하였는지 여부 등을 종합적으로 고려하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제1065조, 제1066조, 제1067조, 제1068조, 제1069조, 제1070조 제1항 / [2] 민법 제1070조 제1항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger