The case holding that it is recognized that it constitutes an anti-social juristic act by actively instigating another person in breach of trust and selling it to himself at a minor value.

Trading, which has actively instigated another person's breach of trust and has caused one-third of the market price to sell to himself, is an anti-social legal act in violation of the concept of justice.

Article 103 of the Civil Act

Busan City

Defendant 1 and 10 others

Busan High Court Decision 71Na147 delivered on January 19, 1972, Busan High Court Decision 71Na147 delivered on January 19, 1972

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The Defendants’ agent’ grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the forest land at issue in this case (56-2, 1-5, 500, 1-1, 2000, 1-2, 2000) originally was owned by the South Do residents, who had been used as a stable shed in the Southern-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Busan Metropolitan City, but the above Dong residents under the name of 14 March 14, 193 for the convenience of management was entrusted to 10 persons among the defendants or 10 persons among the ship owners.

Reviewing the process of documentary evidence conducted by the court below in order to establish the above facts, the court below is legitimate, and there is no violation of documentary evidence law or violation of legal principles, as alleged in the attack.

In addition, Defendant 1 knew that the land of this case was already donated to the Plaintiff and had many market values higher than at the time of donation, the Plaintiff still became a registered titleholder with low academic background or the other Defendants, who are his heir, without going through the registration of transfer of ownership of this land. Thus, even if there was a donation of the land to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, it is legally allowed to sell the land again to the Plaintiff. A third of the market price is used in the litigation cost and the substitute cost and the purchase price of 1/3 of the remaining 5,00 won as the purchase price of the land to the Plaintiff, and as the purchase price of the land was sold to the Plaintiff, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was a registered titleholder with lower academic background or the other Defendants, who were his heir, and the ownership of the forest in this case was legitimately transferred to the Plaintiff.

In examining records, there is no evidence of violation of the rules of evidence in the process of such fact-finding conducted by the court below.

In fact, Defendant 1 actively instigated the other Defendants’ breach of trust and let the other Defendants sell it to himself. Therefore, such sale is an anti-social juristic act in violation of the concept of justice. Therefore, it is necessary to deem it as invalid under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 70Da2038 delivered on October 23, 1970) The judgment below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of Article 103 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, this appeal is groundless, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. This decision is delivered with the assent of all participating judges.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)