메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
조인섭 (법무법인 신세계로)
저널정보
한국가족법학회 가족법연구 가족법연구 제30권 제3호
발행연도
2016.11
수록면
237 - 320 (84page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
A will is legally effective upon the death of the testator, and it is a unilateral act that requires an established form. Civil act is taking the stance of strict formalism towards the wills, but excessive formalism can rather bring the ramification of disregarding the intent of the testator. Countries such as Germany, France, Japan, the UK, and the USA had required strict formalism on wills during the early days. However, these countries have revised the law or have become more relaxed with formality, since requiring strict formalism at the circumstances of dispute could not reflect the intent of testator fully. This approach is strict about asking the requirement of wills itself, but it is largely reducing the emphasis of the formality towards the interpretation of those requirements when the intent of the testator is it guaranteed. Accordingly, in terms of the interpreting civil act, as long as it retains the stance of strict formalism by categorizing the will as a formal act, the requirement of a will should be interpreted in a relaxed manner only if the true intention of the testator is assured while the lack of requirement itself should still be rigidly interpreted. In case of a will by holograph document, the testator must write the whole text of the will in his own handwriting. When some parts of the will is written by a person other than the testator, the part that is written by the testator’s own handwriting should only be considered as a valid will. Therefore, the testament is only effective when the part written by other person was a mere supplementary one, and the intent of the testator can be clearly delivered. In terms of the date, it will be void when the date requirement is never been written. However, if the true intent of the testator is assured, it should be interpreted in a flexible manner for the date is not a fundamental factor of a will. Since the date requirement in a holographic will is only at issue in terms of making the order or determining the capacity to make a will, it is desirable to be resolved through the revision of the clause. For the domicile requirement, it is advisable to eliminate the domicile requirement, since it is not only an excessive restriction but also unconstitutional to require the domicile information. Again, requiring the testator to affix the seal to the holographic will is an excessive limitation while it is also unconstitutional. Therefore, it is desirable to delete this requirement from the law for the legislative purpose. Accordingly, I suggest the article 1066 of the existing civil act to be revised as follows: “(1) In order to make a will by holograph document, the testator must write with his own handwriting the whole text, his full name, the date, and the domicile. (2) In order to make any insertion, deletion or other alteration of letters in a holograph mentioned in paragraph (1), such correction must be made in the testator’s own handwriting. (3) In case when a holographic will mentioned in paragraph (1) is suspected of the validity for there is no statement made regarding the time and place where the will was written, the will shall be deemed as valid if it is possible to confirm where and when it was written with other kinds of proof.”
#자필증서유언 #유언의 자유 #주소 #성명 #날인 #Holograph Will #Freedom of Will #Address #Name #Seal

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (49)

참고문헌 신청
곽윤직 / 2004 / 상속법(민법강의Ⅳ) / 박영사 google schola 김주수 / 2015 / 친족상속법 / 법문사 google schola 김주수 / 2010 / 주석민법 / 한국사법행정학회 google schola 김용한 / 2004 / 친족상속법 / 박영사 google schola 명순구 / 2004 / 프랑스 민법전 / 법문사 google schola

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0