1. In accordance with paragraph 2, the judgment of the first instance shall be modified in accordance with the specific purport of the claim in the trial.

2. The defendant.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "No. 2" in Part 9 of Part 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be confined to "No. 2 and No. 4 of the judgment;" "No. 12 and No. 13 of the evidence that the defendant additionally submitted at the court of first instance, which are insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion; and the defendant's assertion is not sufficient to exclude each description of No. 12 and No. 13 of the evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance; and it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion ① was in a situation where the mind was mixed with a person who lacks mental capacity to handle affairs due to mental constraints, such as illness, disability, old age, etc., but the Plaintiff, taking advantage of these circumstances, agreed that the Defendant intended to order the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”) the building indicated in the Disposition No. 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). As such, it constitutes an unfair juristic act using the Defendant’s old-age, rashness, or experience, and thus, is null and void.

② Since the Defendant entered into the instant agreement with the knowledge of the content of the instant agreement due to mental constraints, such as illness, disability, old age, etc., it has cancelled the instant agreement as an expression of intent by mistake, and the instant agreement also constitutes a declaration of intent by deception or coercion by using the Defendant’s lack of capacity to handle the same affairs as the contract due to such mental constraints. Therefore, the instant agreement is revoked.

B. Determination 1 Defendant 1’s unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act, which is determined as to the assertion, is objectively unreasonable between payment and consideration, and is established when a transaction, which has lost balance as such, was conducted through the use of brush, rash, or inexperience of the victimized Party. As such, the parties are flaged, rash, rash, or inexperience