“If only two sons are given land, then that’s okay”… ‘Twist’ in the video of the seven siblings’ father while he was alive

The Supreme Court ruled토스카지노 that the mere “Is that enough?” in a video of a father saying “I will give the land to my two sons” cannot be used as a signature grant. On the 27th of last month, the 2nd Division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Min Yu-sook) overturned the ruling that had ruled in favor of her son in the case of her seven siblings’ ownership transfer registration claim and sent the case back to the Changwon District Court.

I thought I filmed my will… It’s not a will or a giftMr. A, the youngest son in a family of five sons and two daughters, filed a lawsuit the year after his father passed away. Although his father’s land and buildings had already been divided between his mother and siblings according to the legal inheritance, he argued that he should have more land based on a video recording in which his father said he would give land to him and his older brother.

The video that Mr. A had was taken the year before he passed away, and the father is looking at the laptop screen and reading the message, ‘Give the land and buildings to the two sons, and the eldest son give 20 million won to each of the daughters.’ He even says, “So that’s it?” in the middle .

In the video, the father said, “A will and a deed. It began with “ The testator OOO makes the following will” and ended with “The testator OOO .” However, this did not have the effect of a will. According to civil law, a recorded will must have a witness, but there were no witnesses when this video was filmed.

Will there be a ‘consensus of opinion’ with “Then is it okay?”… Supreme Court “ NO ”With this video, which is not valid as a will, Mr. A claimed that it was a death certificate . A signed gift is a type of gift contract in which the donor promises to give his or her property during his or her lifetime and the promise becomes effective upon death. Unlike a will, there must be agreement between the intentions of the giver and the recipient .

Judge Cha Jin-seok of the Tongyeong branch in the first trial did not accept Mr. A’s claim, but the judgment of the Civil Division 2 (Chief Hong Deuk-kwan) of the Changwon District Court in the second trial was different. Considering the fact that the father asked, ‘Is it okay then?’ and the circumstances surrounding it, “there was an agreement between Mr. A and the father regarding the granting of signatures.”

However, the Supreme Court found this judgment to be wrong. The Supreme Court said, “If a deceased person makes a will to distribute property to his or her children, but the validity of the will is denied, it is not acceptable to recognize it as a testamentary gift, considering that there was an ‘ offer’ and ‘acceptance’ only between some of the children who were present. “It is not in accordance with the wishes of the deceased and is not in line with the fairness of the remaining heirs who were not present, ” he said. This is because my father only wanted to make a will, not to make a gift. As for the statement in question, ‘Then is it okay?’, the Supreme Court ruled, “ It is difficult to say that the question was asked of Mr. A, so it is especially difficult to say that the offer and acceptance were made only between Mr. A. ”

A Supreme Court official said of this ruling, “It is a significant ruling in that it is necessary to strictly interpret the death certificate so as not to harm the equity between co-heirs.”

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *