[2] The starting point of the exclusion period for the exercise of the right of revocation under Article 146 of the Civil Code

[3] The elements for legitimate exercise of the right of revocation in a case where a court exercises a judicial right by serving a part of a counterclaim containing a declaration of intent to revoke a declaration of intent by duress (=Service of a duplicate of the counterclaim within the exclusion period)

Generally, a complaint, accusation, or information, etc. on a media with respect to an unlawful act cannot be deemed illegal if it is not for the purpose of unjust enrichment. However, there may be cases where it is illegal if it is for the purpose of acquiring unjust enrichment or if the act or means is unfair even if it is justifiable (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da25120, Dec. 24, 1992, etc.).

In light of the selected evidence, the lower court determined that Nonparty 1’s act of acquiring the Plaintiff’s real estate ownership transfer by Nonparty 2’s purchase of Nonparty 1’s name on July 26, 201, and that Nonparty 2’s act of acquiring the Plaintiff’s real estate by means of deception on Nonparty 1’s own name, and that Nonparty 2 was subject to hospitalized treatment around October 2002, and that Nonparty 1’s act of purchasing the Plaintiff’s real estate by means of deception on Nonparty 1’s own, including Nonparty 2’s purchase of the Plaintiff’s name and the Plaintiff’s non-party’s non-party-1’s non-party-2’s non-party-party-2 (“the non-party-party-2”)’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party land size was unlawful, and thus, found that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s non-party-2’s non-party-party-party-1’s non-party-party-party-2’s non-party land fraud had been cited.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to the illegality of coercion, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the starting point of the exclusion period

A. The judgment of the court below

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that since the defendant exercised the right to cancel the period of 3 years from February 11, 2003, which is the date of the transfer agreement of this case, the defendant exercised the right to cancel the period of 3 years from the expiration of the exclusion period, the defendant's exercise of the right to cancel the right has no validity as an excess of the exclusion period. In full view of the admitted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in the judgment, such as that the non-party 2 found the non-party 1's sick room up to the police officer in March 2003 and threatened the non-party 1. The non-party 2 continued to make intimidation against the non-party 1 until the non-party 1 was dead on April 14, 2003, since the non-party 1 continued to be threatened with the non-party 1 until the first half of March 2003, the non-party 1 was forced to cancel the right, at least after the end of March 2003.

B. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

The former part of Article 146 of the Civil Act provides that "the right of revocation shall be exercised within three years from the date on which it can be ratified." Meanwhile, Article 144(1) of the Civil Act provides that "the date on which it can be inferred", which is the starting point of the limitation period for the right of revocation under the former part of Article 146 of the Civil Act, shall be the starting point of the limitation period for the right of revocation. The cause for revocation is terminated and there is no obstacle to the exercise of the right of revocation, and thus the right holder may ratification a juristic act subject to revocation and may cancel it. It shall be deemed that the time when the right of revocation becomes able to confirm the juristic act subject to revocation and becomes able to cancel it. (See Supreme Court Decision 98Da7421, Nov. 27, 1998.). Meanwhile, the right of revocation by duress is a form of right of formation, and the above right of revocation becomes effective within the exclusion period, regardless of whether it is judicial or extra-judicial, and the right of cancellation becomes 97.

However, according to the records, the non-party 2 was sent to the plaintiff on February 15, 2006 to the non-party 2 on the non-party 3's first instance court, which included the defendant's declaration of intention of cancellation, and the copy was delivered to the non-party 2 on March 13, 2006. On the other hand, "the non-party 2" means "the 10th day to 20th day of the month," which was delivered to the plaintiff on March 13, 2006, the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2'.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the basis of the non-party 6 witness of the court of first instance on the ground that the counterclaim containing a declaration of intent of revocation was exercised when the counterclaim was received by the court. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the exercise of the right to cancel the declaration of intent by duress and the limitation period and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)