After a woman bequeathed all her property to her niece, she drafted a new will in which she bequeathed all her property to the daughter of the man who cared for her to her last days.
The Court dismissed the objection of the niece to the new bequeath and held that it was drafted in free will. A provision of a will made due to unfair influence, fraud or deception is void. However, not any influence results in the revocation of the will, and it must be unfair in a manner of exploitation of the dependence, weakness or inability of the testator to draft the will in favor of the beneficiary, when the expectation of a person caring for the testator to make a will in his favor is not deemed undue influence. In order to examine such influence, one must examine the dependence or independence of the testator, the nature of care, the extent of the testator’s connections with other people, and the degree of the beneficiary's involvement in drafting the will. Here, although the beneficiary's father was the dominant figure in caring for the woman, it is not apparent that she was dependent on him; The woman was not cut off from her family, and they are the ones who chose to rarely visit her; The involvement of the beneficiary's father amounted solely to the choice of the lawyer who drafted the will. In addition, the father’s expectation that due to his care of the woman she will bequeath her property to his daughter does not amount to unfair influence. Thus, the will was drafted under the woman’s free will and is valid.