Old age, capacity and capacity of action

Even if the age exceeds 80, there is sufficient mental ability to determine the result of his act.

Articles 9, 12, and 754 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1, et al., the taking-off of Nonparty 1’s lawsuit

Defendant 1 and four others, the taking over of the lawsuit by Nonparty 2

Busan District Court (68Ga3178, 3702)

The appeal is dismissed.

The expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc. (Counterclaim defendant, etc.).

The attorney of the plaintiff et al. shall revoke the original judgment.

The defendant et al. (the plaintiff et al. was reduced to the plaintiff et al.; hereinafter the defendant et al.) shall pay 153,500 won in money to the plaintiff et al. (the counter defendant et al.; hereinafter the plaintiff et al.) at the rate of 5% per annum from the following day of service to the full payment.

On October 7, 1967, the judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc. and the declaration of provisional execution shall be sought, and the defendant, etc. shall confirm that the sales contract for the above real estate between the plaintiff and the defendant is invalid.

Litigation costs are assessed against the defendant, etc.

The attorney of the defendant et al., as a counterclaim, the plaintiff et al. will implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on October 7, 1967 for the land listed in the attached list to the defendant et al.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiff, etc.

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6 without dispute over the establishment of the above part of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 7 without dispute over the establishment of the above part of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 ( Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2) are presumed to have been established, and the remaining part of Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 7 are presumed to have been forged after the conclusion of the above part of the contract Nos. 1 and 80, and the plaintiff's remaining part of the land Nos. 1 and 6 were not trusted, and the plaintiff's remaining part of the land No. 1 and 0 are not trusted to the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 6, and the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 97, which are the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 97, which were the plaintiff's remaining part of the contract No. 1 and the plaintiff No. 1 and the plaintiff No. 97.

The plaintiff et al.'s attorney did not delegate the right to receive the purchase price of the site to the non-party 7, and it is invalid to pay the purchase price to the non-party 7 because the defendant entered into a special agreement in the manner of fair sale to the non-party 7. However, the part as stated in the evidence No. 2-1, No. 2-2 and the part as stated in the witness No. 8, the plaintiff 1, and the non-party 3's testimony as to this point and the above part as stated in the witness No. 8, the

Thus, the first claim by the plaintiff et al. seeking the payment of the remaining land is groundless.

Next, the following facts are examined as to the conjunctive claim of the plaintiff et al., and the attorney of the plaintiff et al. asserted that the plaintiff et al. had no mental capacity and ability to act as an elderly person of 80 years of age at the time. However, the plaintiff et al. was not an incompetent person as a matter of course under the Civil Act because the plaintiff et al. was an elderly person of 80 years of age, and it is not recognized that the plaintiff et al. had no mental ability to determine the result of the plaintiff's act at the time due to all evidence offered by the plaintiff's attorney. The above legal act was lawful by the

The plaintiff et al.'s attorney argues that the non-party 7 had forged a related document and that the plaintiff was notified of cancellation on August 19, 1968 because he did not receive the remainder of 490,000 won from the defendant after the contract was entered in the attached list. Thus, the plaintiff et al.'s attorney asserted that the plaintiff et al. did not believe that the plaintiff et al.'s plaintiff 2-1 and 2 did not pay several times in accordance with the above agreement after the contract was entered in the attached list. Since the plaintiff unilaterally notified the cancellation of the contract as above, it is invalid and invalid even if the plaintiff unilaterally notified the cancellation of the contract, and it is also valid since the registration of the theory is consistent with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, the above argument is groundless.

Therefore, the plaintiff et al.'s preliminary claim is groundless.

Then, I examined the counterclaim claim by the defendant, and the deceased non-party 2, who had been the defendant, was the representative of the deceased non-party 1, 1967, and purchased 270 square meters of the site including the land indicated in the separate sheet through the non-party 7, who was the representative of the plaintiff, on October 7, 1967, and paid in full several times between July 20, 1968 and the defendant et al.'s defense against this is without merit. In this case, it is evident in the record that the original plaintiff and the defendant et al. were dead while the lawsuit was in progress, and the lawsuit lawsuit was taken as stated in the first head, and therefore, the defendant et al. is obligated to perform the ownership transfer registration procedure on the land listed in the separate sheet with the plaintiff et al. as a result of the above sale. Thus, the claim by the defendant et al. seeking the implementation of the registration procedure is justified.

Therefore, this conclusion is just and without merit, and the appeal by the plaintiff et al. is dismissed by Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 95 of the same Act to the burden of appeal cost.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Saples (Presiding Judge)