현행민법상 유언의 방식에 관한 연구

김영희(Young-Hee Kim) 한국가족법학회 2006 가족법연구 Vol.20 No.2

  A will is a after-life legal transaction which becomes effective after the testator"s death, and it requires strict formalities in order to prevent its fabrication and falsification as well as to secure testator"s real intent. A will is valid only if it is executed with formalities required by the relevant jurisdiction"s law. As for our country, considering the fact that the custom of the execution of a will is not commonly accepted and legal knowledge regarding formalities of a will is insufficient, when people strictly interpret the formality of a will, it may lose its effect due to the formality violation. Therefore, many theories and judicial precedents in many countries including ours country the formalities of a will moderately interpret loosened from the strictness in order to maintain its effectiveness and secure the testator"s real intent. However, the problem is where to draw the limits line of loosening the requirement of the formality of a will. If the formality of a will is loosened without restriction, then the will actually be acknowledged as unformed will, which contradicts the intent of the law. If we loose the formality of a will, the testator"s real intent becomes hard to be recognized, and if we tighten the formality of a will, the freedom of will becomes in danger. Therefore antinomic problem arises. In other words, judgement on formality violation is heavily depended on the balance level of two contradicting issues. We try to guarantee the freedom of a will, and secure the testator"s intent by loosening the strictness of the formality of the will, however, we face today"s problem of where to draw a line of loosening the strictness of the formality of a will.<BR>  In today"s aging society, a will are important matter which can not be left out. In current where importance of a will increases as the inheritance becomes an equality inheritance, obeying the formality of a will can become a definite problem. Due to the strictness of the formality of a will, there has been many wills which cannot be given effect, becoming the cause of many disputes. Regarding the formality of a will, many theories and judicial precedents tend to acknowledge the effectiveness of the will which formality is interpreted loosely, when it is determined to contain testator"s clear and sincere intention. This attitude is appropriate for the periodical importance and necessity of the will, especially to secure its freedom and revitalization.<BR>  However loosened interpretation according to the formality of a will has limitation on securing testator"s real intention, therefore there must be a reform of the current law of a will through full examination. Especially current civil law adapted the traditional oral will principle, so people with hearing and speaking disabilities cannot execute the will of specific types. It requires standard procedure of oral statements in not only public certificate will type, but also in classified certificate will type and oral certificate will type, therefore people with hearing and speaking disabilities consequently cannot execute these types of will. Within the territory of securing the real intention of the will, methods such as interpreting and etc need to be allowed for these people, otherwise the current law of will unjustly restrict the freedom of a will of people with hearing and speaking disabilities, losing the equality. People with hearing and speaking disabilities can communicate through interpretations such as sign languages and etc, and the contents of the will can be approved through readings and interpretations. The strict traditional verbal will of the current civil law must be amended to expand the concept of oral statements, and also there must be a discussion regarding the reform of current law of will to introduce new methods (such as sign language interpretations and etc) which can replace th

방식위배와 구수증서유언의 검인제도

김영희(Kim Young Hee) 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2007 江原法學 Vol.24 No.-

Oral will which is made by the person facing imminent death from disease or for other reason is specially required to be probated by family court. Though the oral will based on specially simple procedure is a means to allow the person who faces imminent death from disease, etc, to guarantee the freedom of a will, the probation system was designed to confirm the real intention of the will. The probation procedure is required to make the oral will come into effect, in addition to the compliance of the formality of the will. For that reason, special problem which rarely arises from other types of will, namely the probate of oral will, comes to the fore if the will was made in violation of formality. The probated will does not suggest that the will is confirmed to meet the legal requirement for other formality of will, considering that the probate of oral will is nothing but the procedure to prove that the will was made from the real intention of testator and to make such oral will come into effect. The will is finally confirmed to be effective by the civil suit made in accordance with the legal procedure of which execution is fully assured. In some cases, the probated will may be adjudged to be void its effect due to the violation of the formality in which the will was made, or may be revoked for practical reason that the will was not made by the real intention of testator. However, the oral will is adjudged to be void if it is not probated. Considering that civil suit is more appropriate than family suit regarding the noncompliance of formality, there is no right to judge whether the formality of will which is the object of probate of oral will was complied with. The probate of oral will cannot be rejected for the reason that the will was adjudged to be void because it was made in noncompliance of the formality.

遺言에 관한 形式的 嚴格主義와 遺言者의 眞意

金榮喜 민사판례연구회 2008 民事判例硏究 Vol.- No.30

The Korean Civil Code (hereafter the KCC) permits 5 methods in making one's last will: holograph document(§1066), sound recording(§1067), notarial deed(§1068), secret document(§1069) and instrument of dictation(§1070). According to the §1060, which articulates the rule of strict formality about one's last will, no will shall take effect unless it is in conformity with the formality stipulated by the KCC. In this target case, the deceased made his will by holograph document. Only the problem was that the will omits his seal which is required by the §1066 KCC. The Supreme Court of Korea ruled out that the will becomes void upon the rule of strict formality. The author does not concur with the court in its reasoning. The rule of strict formality was set to secure the real intention of the deceased. It is, therefore, better to apply the rule of strict formality loosely if one's real intention was revealed through other ways. To meet the need of moderating the strictness, up to now, the court has made a detour. That is, the court has converted a void will into a valid offer of the contract of donation which is to become effective upon the death of the donor. The author wants to point out that the conversion is precarious in its theoretical base, and it needs some complementation. 대상판결은 민법이 규정하고 있는 유언의 여러 방식 중 자필증서 방식에 의해 유언이 행해졌던 경우에 관한 것이다. 종래 대법원은 자필증서에 의한 유언과 관련하여 형식적 엄격주의를 고수하여 왔으며, 대상판결은 이와 같은 대법원의 태도를 고스란히 반영하고 있다. 이 사건에서 법원은 유언자의 진정한 의사를 확보하기 위해 유언에 관한 형식적 엄격주의를 고수해야 한다는 원론적인 설시를 앞세우고 나서, 설령 유언의 내용이 유언자의 진정한 의사에 합치하더라도 방식에 하자가 있으면 유언을 유효로 할 수는 없다고 결론을 내리고 있다. 대상판결은 전체적으로 선판례에 충실한 판결의 전형을 보여주고 있는데, 필자는 본 판결이 그러한 태도를 취하는 판결이 가지는 전형적인 오류도 함께 보여주고 있다고 생각한다. 먼저, 대상판결의 주된 논점이며 논거였던 유언에 관한 형식적 엄격주의를 보자. 유언에 관한 형식적 엄격주의는 유언자의 진의 확보를 위한 것이다. 그러므로 본 사건처럼 유언자의 진의가 인정되되 방식의 미준수가 있는 경우에는 유언자의 진의 확보를 위한 형식적 엄격주의가 유언을 무효로 하는 직접적인 근거로 제시되는 것이 부적합하다. 그런 점에서 대상판결은 선판례에 충실한 대신 사건의 개별성에 주의를 덜 기울인, 그리고 그 결과 결론의 타당성에도 불구하고 결론을 정당화하는 논리는 상대적으로 미흡한 전형을 보여준다고 평가할 수 있다. 아울러 필자는 대상판결의 또 다른 논점이었던, 법원이 방식 미준수의 유언을 사인증여의 의사표시로 보는 것과 관련하여 유언과 사인증여를 경제적 측면이 아닌 의사표시라는 법이론적 측면에서 재검토하여 해당 선판례를 이론적으로 보충해 둘 필요가 있다는 생각을 가지고 있다.

전자유언 제도 도입을 위한 시론 : 미국법에 대한 검토를 중심으로

현소혜(Hyun, Sohea) 한국비교사법학회 2021 비교사법 Vol.28 No.1

전자문서의 이용이 활발해지면서 유언 자체를 전자적 방법에 의해 작성하거나 보존하는 경우도 점차 확대될 것으로 예상된다. 본 논문에서는 전자유언의 효력을 적극적으로 인정하려는 경향이 있는 미국의 태도를 중심으로 비교법적 검토를 진행하고, 우리 법상 전자유언 제도의 도입 가능성을 타진해보고자 하였다. 미국에서는 인증유언 또는 자필증서유언에서의 ‘서면’과 ‘서명’ 요건을 넓게 해석하는 방법 또는 무해한 오류의 원칙을 적용하는 방법에 의해 전자적 방법으로 작성된 유언의 효력을 인정한 판례들이 있고, 이 점을 입법에 의해 명확히 하기 위해 각 주에서 관련 법률을 제정하기도 하였다. 하지만 전자유언 제도를 도입한 각 주의 태도는 매우 상이하여 미국 통일주법위원회는 2019년 ｢통일전자유언법｣을 제정하여 이를 통일하고자 하였다. 위 법은 전자유언의 방식을 간소화하여 증인이 유언 작성 당시 물리적으로 동석하지 않고, 화상장치 등을 이용해 전자적 방법으로 동석하는 것을 허용하였을 뿐만 아니라, 각 주의 선택에 따라 증인 없이 작성된 전자유언에 대해서도 무해한 오류의 원칙에 따라 유언으로서의 효력을 인정할 수 있도록 하였다. ｢전자문서 및 전자거래 기본법｣, ｢전자서명법｣ 등의 태도에 비추어 볼 때 현행 민법의 해석상으로도 전자적 방법에 의해 자필로 작성하고 보존한 유언은 물리적 서면의 형태로 존재하지 않더라도 유언의 효력을 인정할 수 있다고 본다. ｢공증인법｣상 전자공증 제도에 준해 공정증서유언이나 비밀증서유언에 증인이 전자적 방법으로 참여하도록 하는 것도 가능할 것이다. 하지만 그것을 넘어 증인이 참여하지 않은 상태에서 자필 기재가 아닌 전자적 방법에 의해 유언을 필기한 경우라도 전자서명 인증제도 및 전자문서 보관제도에 따라 서명되고 보관된 유언의 경우에는 간이하게 유언의 효력을 인정하는 새로운 방식의 전자유언 제도를 도입할 필요가 있다. As the use of electronic legal documents expands, the number of wills written or stored by electronic methods are expected to increase as well. This article is written for conducting a comparative legal research on electronic wills of the United States, which has adopted the positive position on that issue partially, with the aim of examining the possibility of introducing the e-will system under Korean Civil Code. There are some precedents which acknowledge the validity of wills made electronically by broad interpretation of the terms ‘in writing’ and ‘signature’ in the cases of attested wills or holographic wills or by applying the harmless error doctrine in the United States. There are also some states which has enacted laws on electronic wills for sweeping controversy over the validity of electronic wills. However, since the requirements for a valid e-wills vary widely according to the states, the Uniform Electronic Wills Act is enacted for unification of the safeguards in 2019. The Act simplifies the requirements of e-wills, permits the electronic presence of a testator and witnesses, and applies the harmless error doctrine in order to acknowledge the validity of e-wills without witnesses at the choice of each state. The wills handwritten or stored by electronic methods can be also valid under the current law of Korea considering the Electronic Documents and Electronic Transactions Basic Act and Electronic Signature Act, even if they do exist in the form of physical documents. Be that as it may, it is more desirable to introduce a new electronic will system into Korean Civil Code for the case that the will is written by electronic method instead of handwriting, suggesting the validity of the will can be acknowledged if it has been signed in accordance with the electronic signature certification system and stored in the electronic document storage system, and can be so, even if there are no witnesses.

유언의 성립과 효력에 관한 몇 가지 문제

김형석 민사판례연구회 2016 民事判例硏究 Vol.- No.38

This article elucidates some important problems concerning making legally effective wills. For this purpose, it not only reviews the doctrine and case law presented till recently, but attempts new reflections on issues to be raised in the future, whereby the comparative approach is adopted when necessary. The contents include: 1. Freedom of testation and its limits 2. Testamentary formalities 3. Revocation of wills 4. Avoidance of wills 5. Joint wills 6. Subsequent succession 본고는 우리 민법에서 유언의 성립과 효력에 관련되는 중요한 쟁점들을 개관하고자 한다. 이는 우선 지금까지 제기되어 온 문제에 대한 재판례와 학설을 살펴보는 것을 의미하겠지만, 더 나아가 장래에 제기될 것으로 예기되는 문제에 대한 탐구도 포함해야 할 것이다. 특히 후자와 관련해 우리나라에서 논의가 많이 진행되지 아니한 부분에 대해서는 외국의 경험을 참조해 해결의 실마리를 찾아보고자 한다. 다루는 주요 내용은 다음과 같다. 1. 유언의 자유와 한계 2. 유언의 방식 3. 유언의 철회 4. 유언의 취소 5. 공동유언 6. 순차적 재산승계

공정증서유언과 공증인법

김기영(Kim, Gi-Young) 원광대학교 법학연구소 2011 圓光法學 Vol.27 No.3

The Civil Law requires a strictness in the way of Will to prevent legal troubles in advance, since Will is a final self expression of a testator and becomes effective legally after his death. So the Civil Law recognized the way of Will as an effective Will only when it meets complicated conditions and procedures which are disciplined by the Civil Law. By the way, the strictness and complication of this way of Will could cause a social happenings as like an evasion or a denial of Will behavior could be a interruption of a testator's private action. This happening would be no problem when the frequency in use of Will is low, but the should consider the counter plan as the frequency becomes increasing and the freedom of Will is recognized as an important value. Therefore, the condition of Will Form of Notary document should be lightened and complemented more of less, a shown in the foreign precedent theory concerning Will Form of Notary Document, and in the Notary Act which is the subsidiary Civil Law. Actual condition among the conditions of Will Form of Notary Document should be applied strictly in the way of Will, and should be invalid when they are against it. When a condition among conditions of Will Form of Notary Document, which doesn't fall under the actual condition, corresponds to an identity, a real Will, and Will Form of testator, the explanation should be lightened of Will notarial system should be operated flexibly to get rid of an uncertainty of testator's real-Will, then the legal effect could be regarded as valid. We could substitute oral by writing, read by interpretation which are in the Civil Law Article 1068 about Will Form of Notary Document. However we should prepare the legal complementary system to discern a certainty of Will existence, the real mind of testator, to protect the freedom of Will who are deaf and dumb, and just in the case of lost, damage, forgery alteration of Will Form. Then essential examination about system and law which are related with Will Form of Notary Document is required rather than lightening of the way of Will.

로마의 군인유언 제도 -고전기 로마법을 중심으로-

이철우 한국법사학회 2022 法史學硏究 Vol.66 No.-

The Roman testamentum militis is generally stated as the predecessor of later army–related testamentary institutions in the world. In the first century, almost all the legions and auxiliary units of Roman army stationed themselves in provincial areas, and then the soldiers were mainly recruited from the stationed provinces. As new Roman citizens or yet non–citizens, soldiers could not understand or apply the Roman law regarding testament. In such circumstances the military will was built on imperial mandates issued by Titus, Domitianus, Nerva, and Traianus, which gave imperial soldiers to make testaments freely without obeying the legal rules regarding the forms and contents of ordinary testaments. All the members of Roman military, including legions, auxiliary units, navy, and vigiles, could make a military will. They could make it from the time of enrollment in the unit to the time of discharge, and the military will made during the service remained valid for a year after discharge unless this was with ignominy. In making military will a soldier was not obliged to obey many of rules and regulations of testamentary law, to which every other citizen of Rome was bound. First of all, the military will was not bound to the formalities of testamentary will, demanding ‘documents’ and ‘witnesses of specific numbers’ etc. Secondly, it was not bound by the rules of testamenti factio. A filius familias miles could make a testament about his peculium castrense. A soldier sentenced to capital punishment also could make a military will, unless he committed certain felonies like treason or surrender. A miles could ‘test’, even though he were deaf and dumb. Peregrines and caelibes were allowed to be given hereditaments and legacies by the military will. Thirdly, a military will did not have to follow the various rules of instituio. A soldier could die pro parte testatus, pro parte intestatus. As he was not bound by the rules of exherdatio, he could implicitly exheredare(i.e. praeterire) his sui heredes. A soldier could institute someone heir up to a particular time or someone else heir from another particular time, and also institute someone heir from or to the fulfillment of a condition. Fourthly, the Falcidian law and the querella inofficiosi testamenti did not apply to the military will. Roman military will was taken as a system of privileges, namely ‘ius singulare’. Justinian reformed the military will by limiting its use only to the soldiers participating in military expeditions (in expeditionibus). 일반적으로 군인유언제도는 로마에서 유래한 제도라고 설명한다. 로마의 군인유언은 1세기에 황제들의 칙령에 의해서 인정되었는데, 법규에 대한 지식이 부족해서 또는 시민권을 부여받지 못해서 법정의 요건을 갖춘 통상의 유언을 할 수 없었던 군인들에게 방식과 내용상의 규칙에 구속됨이 없이 자유롭게 유언할 수 있는 권한을 부여하였다. 로마 군대의 모든 구성원, 즉 정규 군단원이나 지원군인 뿐만 아니라 해군, 소방대원(vigiles)도 군인유언을 할 수 있었는데, 부대에 등록을 마친 시점부터 轉役할 때까지 군인유언을 할 수 있었다. 다만 입대 이전에 한 유언도 일정한 경우에는 군인유언의 효력이 인정되었고 명예롭게 전역한 군인에게는 전역 후 1년간 군인유언의 효력이 인정되었다. 군인유언에는 유언의 방식과 내용 등에 관한 규칙이 상당부분 완화되어 적용되었다. ① 우선 서면작성이나 일정한 수의 증인을 요구하는 통상의 유언 방식을 따를 필요가 없었다. ② 家子인 경우에도 군인은 병영특유재산에 관해서는 유언할 수 있었고, 사형판결을 받은 군인도 반란이나 항복 등의 중죄를 지은 경우가 아니면 병영특유재산에 대해서는 유언할 수 있었다. 또한 농아자나 미성숙자인 군인도 유언을 할 수 있었고, 외국인이나 독신자와 같이 유언을 통해 이익을 받을 수 없는 자도 군인의 유언으로부터는 상속이나 유증을 받을 수 있었다. ③ 군인유언에는 상속인지정에 관한 여러 가지 규칙들이 적용되지 않았다. 유언상속과 무유언상속을 병용할 수 있었고 복수의 유언이 허용되었으며, 기한부 및 조건부로 상속인지정을 할 수 있었고, 특정물들에 대한 복수의 상속인이 지정된 경우에도 각각에 대한 유증으로 간주되어 그 효력이 유지되었다. 특히 가내상속인을 상속제외할 경우 명시적으로 제외할 필요 없이 묵시적으로(간과함으로써) 제외할 수 있었다. ④ 팔키디우스법과 배륜유언의 소의 적용을 받지 않았다. 일부의 고전기 법학자들은 로마의 군인유언제도를 군인들에게 예외적으로 특권을 부여한 소위 ‘특례법(ius singulare)’으로 인식하였다. 유스티니아누스 황제는 출정하지 않은 경우에도 군인에게 특권으로서 인정되던 군인유언을 출정 중의 군인만이 할 수 있도록 허용범위를 제한하였다.

유언철회(遺言撤回)의 철회(撤回)

현소혜 ( Hyun So Hye ) 홍익대학교 법학연구소 2007 홍익법학 Vol.8 No.3

우리 헌법상 보장되고 있는 유언의 자유에는 유언철회의 자유뿐만 아니라, 유언철회의 의사표시를 다시 철회할 자유까지 모두 포함된다. 유언자의 최종적 의사를 존중할 필요가 있기 때문이다. 그런데 우리 민법은 유언철회의 철회에 어떠한 효과를 부여할 것인지에 대해 명문의 규정을 두고 있지 않다. 입법례는 유언철회의 의사표시가 철회되면 본래의 유언이 되살아난다고 보는 부활주의와 법정상속이 개시될 뿐이라고 보는 비부활주의로 나누어져 있는바, 우리 통설은 부활주의가 타당하다고 한다. 그러나 외국의 입법례는 유언의 방식에 좇은 유언철회만을 인정하고 있음에 반하여 우리 민법 제1108조는 생전행위에 의한 유언의 철회까지 인정하고 있다는 점에서 부활주의는 방식주의와의 충돌을 가져올 수 있다. 본래 유언은 민법이 정하고 있는 일정한 방식을 갖춘 경우에만 그 효력을 가질 수 있는 것이 원칙임에도 불구하고, 부활주의에 따르면 무방식의 생전행위(유언철회의 철회)에 의해 이미 소멸하였던 유언이 다시 효력을 갖게 되기 때문이다. 방식주의를 채택한 입법취지에 비추어 볼 때 부활주의를 택하고 있는 통설의 태도는 재고를 요한다. 다만, 본래의 유언을 부활시키고자 하는 유언자의 진의가 이미 명백한 경우에는 당사자의 의사에 따른 효과를 인정하여야 할 것이다. 이러한 경우에는 더 이상 유언의 존재를 둘러싼 분쟁이 발생할 여지가 없어 방식주의를 관철할 실익이 없기 때문이다. 입법론으로서는 민법 제1108조 제1항 중 `생전행위` 부분을 삭제함으로써 무방식의 유언의 철회와 방식주의 간의 충돌가능성을 봉쇄하는 것이 타당할 것이다. The freedom to make a will includes the freedom to withdraw the will, and, by extension, to revoke the withdrawal itself because of the very nature of will. In the case of revocation of withdrawal some countries presume the first will shall revive, but others not. The Korean Civil Law has no provision about its effects. Although most people are in favor of admitting the revival of the first will, it cannot be accepted considering the principle of formality. It is simply because the Korean Civil Law in force allows the revocation by the declaration of intention in lifetime as well as by a will, which makes a difference from other countries which presume the revival while they admit only the revocation by will. As a consequence, the once revoked will, therefore the invalid one, can be valid again merely by the declaration of the testator without any form. Certainly, it is followed by a collision with the principle of formality. But if the testator has intended obviously to revive the first will, his intention should be respected, because the principle of formality does not have to be carried through in that case.

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

金泳希(Young Hee Kim) 한국가족법학회 2007 가족법연구 Vol.21 No.3

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.

치매와 유언능력의 판단

김현진 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 2017 외법논집 Vol.41 No.1

With an advent of aging society and higher rates of mentally disabling conditions such as dementia including Alzheimer Disease, there have been a number of legal disputes recently where testator’s capacity to make a valid will has been challenged on the basis that he or she was mentally incapable of doing so. Generally, a person who lacked the capacity to make a contract can nevertheless make a valid will, and testamentary capacity is different from legal or mental capacity. Litigation about testamentary capacity typically revolves around charges that the testator, by virtue of dementia, lacked the mental capacity to make a will. To illustrate this point is the recent case of the Korean Supreme Court decision on March 13, 2014 (2009da53093). Here, the last will of the testator in his seventies, which was written to give all his property to his spouse and children except his eldest son, was challenged by that eldest son who was the only would-be beneficiary under the previous will. There had been six notarized wills total; the odd-numbered wills were made for the eldest son, while the even-numbered wills were for his spouse and other children. When he made his last will in the patient room, he had been suffering from dementia for seven years, and he couldn’t even sound voice due to his airway incision surgery, and neither a doctor nor the eldest son was in there. Despite the medical reports and the testimony of doctor, it was still difficult to determine testamentary capacity from evidences available after the testator’s death. This was a question of balancing the interests of individual autonomy and protection of constructive inheritors. The Supreme Court in this case requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the testator did not know the consequence of his or her conduct when he or she executed the will. However, considering the testator’s physical and mental conditions, the Court would have admitted that he lacked testamentary capacity due to dementia, and would have made the defendant prove that the testator had a “lucid interval” at the time of the execution of the testamentary instrument. The need for better and more accurate assessments of testamentary capacity grows as Korean society ages and incidences of debilitating conditions increases. Capacity is a legal determination, but medical opinion is one of the important data for deciding this, even though court is not bound to this opinion. The difficulties inherent within capacity judgment are exacerbated by the ad hoc approaches by court and doctors based on individual knowledge and experience, not by nationally accepted assessment guidelines between doctors and lawyers. 고령화 사회가 도래하면서, 치매 등으로 판단능력이 부족하면서도 후견개시의 심판을 받지 아니한, 이른바 사실상 무능력자가 작성한 유언의 효력을 둘러싼 법적 분쟁도 증가하고 있다. 유언의 자유는자신이 행하는 유언의 법적 의미를 이해하면서 그 효과를 의욕할 수 있다는 판단력, 즉 유언능력이 있음을 전제로 한다. 나아가, 유언자의 최종의 의사를 존중하기 위해 유언철회의 자유가 인정된다. 다른한편, 유언이 유효하기 위해서는 우선, 그 유언이 민법이 정한 방식에 의할 것을 요한다. 대상판결은 유언자가 최초의 유언을 한 뒤 치매에 걸렸고, 수년에 걸쳐 치매가 진행된 상태에서 수차례앞의 유언의 내용과 저촉되는 공정증서에 의한 유언을 한 사안으로, 각 유언당시 유언능력이 있었는지가핵심 논점이었다. 그런데, 장기간 치매를 앓아옴은 인지기능 장애를 가져온다는 점, 경우에 따라서는유언의 재산적 효과가 커서 이해관계가 밀접한 수증자들이 유언자에게 부당한 영향력을 행사할 가능성이높다는 점, 유언자의 최종의 진의를 추구하여야 한다는 점에서 유언능력은 재산행위에서 요구되는 일반적인 의사능력의 판단과는 분명히 다른 요소가 있음을 고려할 필요가 있다. 나아가 이러한 유언능력은공정증서에 의한 유언에서 ‘구수’라는 유언방식요건의 준수와 경계가 맞닿아 있다는 점에서 주의를 요한다. 결국 유언능력 유무의 판단은 사실인정의 문제인데, 유언자가 사망한 지 9년이 넘도록 치매시의유언능력 유무 내지 증명책임의 소재를 둘러싸고 지리한 법적 공방이 계속되어 온 현실은 그 판단이그만큼 어렵고 기존의 잣대만으로는 해결되기 어려움이 있음을 보여준다고 하겠다. 대상판결은, 치매환자의 유언능력이 대법원에서 정면으로 문제된 최초의 판결로서, 여러 가지 점에서 아쉬움이 남는다. 첫째, 공정증서에 의한 유언인 제6유언의 효력과 관련하여 구수능력과 유언능력을 구분하여 판시하고 있지 않은데, 유언 당시 말에 의한 의사표현이 이루어지지 않았으므로 일단 구수요건을 구비했다고 보기 어렵다고 보아야 한다. 둘째, 대법원은 유언능력의 판단에 있어서의 특수성을 고려하지 않고 의사능력의 판단과 같이 보아, 유언의 무효를 주장하는 자가 유언능력이 없음을 입증하여야 한다고 보았다. 나아가 유언 당시 유언의 내용을 이해할 수 여부를 알 수 없다는 의사의 증언보다 유언이 행해지기 일주일전 작성된 진단서에 기초하여 유언의 내용을 이해하고 이를 구수할 능력자체가 인정되지 아니한다고 단정하기 어렵다고 하였다. 그러나 장기간 치매가 진행된 상태였고, 수차례 유언이 번복되는 상황이었으며, 유언 당시 함께 살던 이해관계인들에게 유리한 내용이었다는 점을 고려하면, 유언능력이 있다고 주장하는 자가 치매상태임에도 불구하고 유언 당시에는 의식이 돌아와 유언을 이해하고 구술할 능력이 있었음을 입증하도록 했어야 하지 않았나 생각한다. 또한 유언 당시 유언자의 치매의 진행상태가 어떠했는지 파악하여 인지기능의 장애 정도를 명확히 하려는 노력이부족하지는 않았는가 하는 아쉬움도 든다. 이제 고령사회를 눈앞에 둔 우리나라는 치매환자의 수가 더 늘어나는 한편, 유언이 점차 활성화됨에 따라 대상판결과 같이 유언자의 사후에 치매상태에서 작성한 유언의 효력을 두고 벌어지는 첨예한이해관계의 대립은 더욱 증가할 것이다. 따라 ...