beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. As the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim is justified.
The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) the “213,00,000 won” of the first instance judgment No. 2, No. 2, No. 18; (b) the “213,00,000 won”; and (c) the “in-house” of the 6, No. 6, and No. 7 as “in-house”; and (d) the Plaintiff’s judgment on the assertion added at the trial is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment as set forth below No. 2; and (b) thereby,
2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s assertion added in the trial room
A. At the time of entering into the instant sales contract for the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff was in imminent situation, and the Defendant entered into the instant sales contract with the intent to use it, knowing the Plaintiff’s aforementioned situation, and the instant sales contract was to receive the amount substantially below the market price of each of the instant real estate from the Defendant, and thus, there is a significant imbalance between payment and consideration.
Therefore, the instant sales contract is null and void as it constitutes an unfair legal act concluded by using the Plaintiff’s old-age.
B. The unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act is established when there exists an objective imbalance between payment and consideration, and a transaction which has lost balance as a subjectively, is conducted using boom, rashness, or inexperience of the victimized Party. The purpose of the act is to regulate brush, rash, orless experience of a person in a position of the weak, and the requirement for establishing an unfair legal act is not a requirement, but a part of the requirement is not a requirement.