The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. A cancellation of a juristic act shall be made by declaring intention to the other party (Article 142 of the Civil Act). A declaration of intent to cancel is not required to the other party except where it is specifically required to do so by judicial action. If the intention to cancel is recognizable by the other party, it is unreasonable to say that the declaration of intent to cancel is included in a claim for performance in a lawsuit premised on the cancellation of the juristic act, or in a refusal of performance premised on it.

However, according to the records, even if the non-party becomes a legal guardian of the defendant in the legal brief dated January 8, 1993 (the 9th day of pleading on the same day), the above non-party did not obtain the consent of the family council under Article 950 of the Civil Act in selling the real estate of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion is asserted without any grounds. Thus, the above defense contains the intention of revocation of the defendant.

2. However, in light of the records, the reasoning of the court below's decision that confirmed the sale contract by requiring the plaintiff to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer against his shares in the real estate of this case from the time of the late 1990, after the defendant became an adult, is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality such as violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rules of evidence, insufficient deliberation, etc. Thus, even if the court below erred in finding that the defendant did not prove any assertion about the cancellation of the above sale contract, it does not affect the conclusion of this case. Accordingly, the argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)