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
1...
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff is a person with a intellectual disability 1st degree, and the Plaintiff sold the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Apartment 1401 Dong 1002 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as a special unit for disabled persons, and sold the right under the sales contract of the instant apartment to D on November 7, 2008 for KRW 79,720,00, and D sold the said right again to E on December 24, 201, and E completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 12, 201 with respect to the instant apartment on the ground of sale on January 17, 2008.
With respect to the sale of the instant apartment sale right by the Plaintiff, KRW 19,912,490 (including additional charges of KRW 8,375,620) and KRW 1,991,010 (including additional charges of KRW 837,330) were each imposed on the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 11, 14, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit and appeal are unlawful as they were filed by a person without authority, or filed pursuant to a litigation delegation contract in a state where the capacity of intention is defective, while the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as a person with intellectual disability with less than 35 intellectual disability with less than 35 intellectual disability.
In light of the above, the court’s ability to examine and examine the contents of examination of the witness by holding the Plaintiff seated at the fourth date for pleading on June 24, 2016, and hearing the contents of examination of the witness on July 28, 2017 with a certificate of personal seal impression issued on July 21, 2017, and submitted it to the court on August 28, 2017, in light of such circumstances, the effect of the litigation conducted by a person without mental capacity should be determined by individual litigation, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, including the degree of his/her mental capacity, the nature and effect of the pertinent litigation conducted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10113, Oct. 11, 2002).