beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On January 11, 2017, E, a real estate broker, was entrusted by the Plaintiff with the sale of 225 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), and purchased the instant land in the name of Defendant B and Defendant C, his spouse, and around January 1, 2017. After that, the fact that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendants was completed with respect to each of the instant land 1/2 shares among the instant land does not conflict between the parties, or that each of the instant land 1/2 shares was completed under the Defendants’ names, may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as to each of the instant land 1/2 shares, and the purport of each of
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The plaintiff asserts that the above sales contract constitutes an unfair juristic act and invalid since it concluded a sales contract with the content that the land of this case was purchased in the name of the defendants with a significantly lower price of 30 million won under the name of the defendants by taking advantage of the plaintiff's rash and experience, who is the elderly who suffered from dementia.
The unfair legal act as referred to in Article 104 of the Civil Act is established when the injured party is in the state of poverty, rashness, or inexperience, and the other party knowingly knew of the circumstances on the part of the injured party, and the injured party committed a juristic act with intent to use it in bad faith and with a significant imbalance between payment and consideration.
Whether a party was in a state of poverty, rashness, or inexperience shall be determined specifically by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as his age and occupation, degree of education and social experience, property status, and degree of urgency in the situation at which the party was faced. On the other hand, even if the party was in a state of poverty, rash, or inexperience, the other party was aware of the circumstances on the part of the party to the damage, and there was no intention to use it, i.e., bad faith.
If there is no significant imbalance between payment and consideration, unfair legal act is not established. Supreme Court Decision 2002.