The Supreme Court has ruled that a will made through a written deposition (a document recording another person's oral statement) by a patient with breathing difficulties three days before death can be recognized as valid.
According to the legal community on Tuesday, the Supreme Court's Second Division (presiding Justice Oh Kyung-mi) recently overturned a lower court ruling that had ruled against plaintiff A in a deposit claim lawsuit filed against Woori Bank, and sent the case back to the Seoul Central District Court.
B, the half-brother of A (sharing the same mother but different fathers), left a will through a written deposition in April 2021 while hospitalized, stating, "I bequeath all my assets, including deposit claims and the right to recover jeonse deposits for my residence, to A." A will made through a written deposition is a procedure permitted when methods such as recording or handwritten documents cannot be used due to urgent circumstances such as illness. Under this procedure, the party orally conveys the will, and a witness who hears it writes and reads it aloud, then confirms its accuracy. One witness wrote down B's will and read it aloud, while another witness, a lawyer, filmed the entire process on video. At the time, B was only barely able to state account numbers and other information with slurred pronunciation due to breathing difficulties. Details of some assets were confirmed to have been expressed with the help of a third party.
A subsequently applied to the Seoul Family Court for probate of the will in order to receive approximately 96 million won deposited in the deposit claim listed as B's asset in the will. About five months later, the court approved the request, and B's heirs raised no objections to the will's contents. However, when the bank refused to pay, A filed a lawsuit in August 2022.
The first and second trials did not recognize the validity of the will made through a written deposition, stating that since B was able to recognize and speak about his financial status and the meaning of the bequest at the time, it was difficult to conclude that a recorded will had been impossible.
However, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling. The court determined that, considering B's condition, it was objectively difficult to make a will in accordance with the methods prescribed by the Civil Act. "The reason for strictly judging the formality of a will is to clarify the testator's true intent and to prevent legal disputes and confusion," the Supreme Court explained. "Such purpose must be considered when judging the requirements for a will made through a written deposition."
"At the time of the will, the deceased was wearing an oxygen mask due to breathing difficulties, had impaired normal pronunciation, and appears to have had difficulty speaking freely and continuously," the Supreme Court stated. "It would have been considerably difficult for him to draft a handwritten will on his own without the help of a third party, or to lead the process of recording his own voice to orally state the intent of the will, his name, and the date." The court also pointed out that given B's death just three days after making the will, it could not be conclusively determined that a will by any method other than recording had been possible.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court ruled that "there is considerable room to find that the deceased falls under a case where it was objectively impossible to make a will through methods such as handwritten document, recording, or notarized document due to urgent circumstances such as illness."
