{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","provider_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","author_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","author_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","title":"KKO 2402\/2017 - Perint\u00f6kaari","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"9kgaw42moJ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/kko-2402-2017-perintokaari\/\">KKO 2402\/2017 &#8211; Perint\u00f6kaari<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/kko-2402-2017-perintokaari\/embed\/#?secret=9kgaw42moJ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u300a KKO 2402\/2017 &#8211; Perint\u00f6kaari \u300b\u2014Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"9kgaw42moJ\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n<\/script>\n","description":"Perilliset vaativat testamentin julistamista tehottomaksi, koska testamenttia ei ollut l\u00f6ytynyt peritt\u00e4v\u00e4n j\u00e4\u00e4mist\u00f6st\u00e4. Hovioikeus julisti testamentin tehottomaksi silt\u00e4 osin kuin se esti perillisi\u00e4 saamasta osuuttaan j\u00e4\u00e4mist\u00f6st\u00e4. Testamentin saaja haki muutosta hovioikeuden tuomioon ja esitti Korkeimmassa oikeudessa testamentista kappaleen, jonka ilmoitti olevan toisen kahdesta laaditusta kappaleesta. Korkeimmassa oikeudessa esitetty uusi selvitys otettiin huomioon ja asia palautettiin k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeuteen..."}