본문 바로가기

추천 검색어

실시간 인기 검색어

학술논문

口授證書遺言과 유언에 있어서 口授의 意義 - 대상판결 대법원 2006. 3. 9. 선고 2005다 57899

이용수 85

영문명
STUDY ON THE MEANING OF ORAL STATEMENT IN A WILL AND AN ORAL WILL
발행기관
한국가족법학회
저자명
金泳希(Young Hee Kim)
간행물 정보
『가족법연구』家族法硏究 第21卷 3號, 349~390쪽, 전체 42쪽
주제분류
법학 > 법학
파일형태
PDF
발행일자
2007.11.30
7,840

구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.

1:1 문의
논문 표지

국문 초록

영문 초록

  In the case of oral will, one’s last will and testament is done when the testator is on the brink of passing away, so that his capability of oral statement or its very existence comes into question. Oral statement means in conveying the testator’s last intent by verbal. In order to secure the testator’s real intent, the testator is supposed to directly convey his free intention in front of witnesses or a notary. Whether the testator’s intention is described in an ambiguous language, with the help of an interpreter or a doctor, by a mere gesture or through the judgement of witnesses or a notary comes into question.
  According to the analysis as to the judicial precedents of public certificate will or oral will, failing to answer questions in a verbal way or showing a mere positive or negative sign by gestures when the testator leaves his last intent is not recognized as good as having an oral statement by the civil code. The testator need not state the whole intent of his testament. And when a third-party person prepares a draft and makes a general statement overall, it is recognized as good as having a clear intent of the testament. It is actually necessary to judge whether the oral statement is valid, taking into consideration the background, motive and rightfulness of the testament rather than the mere existence of verbal statement.
  Besides, it is not deemed inappropriate to omit some parts of the oral statement or change the order of verbal statements when the true intent of the testator is correctly described with regard to the content and the testator himself gets involved with writing a will of his own free intent, viewed from the entire process of making the will. If an interested person deeply involved with the content of the will writes it himself, hindering the true intent of the testator from being secured, it is necessary to seriously consider whether to recognize the oral statement. It should be construed as valid, though, for another person to write a testament, when it merely helps secure the clarification of the statement.
  A disease often reduces the testator’s capability of discernment or judgement by far. According to some judicial precedents of a patient’s oral will, the question of whether he is capable of making a will is closely related to the ability of an oral statement. When a disease reduces both the physical and judgemental ability of the testator so conspicuously as to make him unable to declare his intention even by gestures, his ability of a will comes into question. When taking into consideration whether a patient is able to make an oral will, it should be examined in relation to the question of his discerning capability to make a will, since the substantial judgement as to the oral will depends on testator’s ability of making a will regardless of the existence of verbal expressions. The question of whether the testator is capable of making a judgement, a discernment or a ability of will closely related to the ability of oral statement. Since a will is based on the assumption of the testator’s discerning ability, it should be deemed invalid when he lacks enough judgemental ability so conspicuously.
  An oral will is a system that is recognized as a special method of making a will with ease when the testator is unable to make a holographic will. It requires standard procedure of oral statements however. I think, therefore, people with hearing and speaking disabilities consequently cannot execute these types of will. It is thus necessary to be considerate of people with hearing and speaking disabilities, so thar they could execute a oral will by allowing interpretations and approving the contents of the will to the testator and witnesses through readings and interpretations.

목차

Ⅰ. 사실관계 및 판결의 개요
Ⅱ. 판례의 연구
Ⅲ. 結論
《참고문헌》
영문초록

키워드

해당간행물 수록 논문

참고문헌

교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!

신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.

바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!

교보e캐시 1,000원
TOP
인용하기
APA

金泳希(Young Hee Kim). (2007).口授證書遺言과 유언에 있어서 口授의 意義 - 대상판결 대법원 2006. 3. 9. 선고 2005다 57899. 가족법연구, 21 (3), 349-390

MLA

金泳希(Young Hee Kim). "口授證書遺言과 유언에 있어서 口授의 意義 - 대상판결 대법원 2006. 3. 9. 선고 2005다 57899." 가족법연구, 21.3(2007): 349-390

결제완료
e캐시 원 결제 계속 하시겠습니까?
교보 e캐시 간편 결제