(a) A person who asserts an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act must prove that he himself has been aware of it with old-style rashness or experience;

B. A case which cannot be viewed as an unfair juristic act under Article 104 of the Civil Act

A person who asserts an unfair legal act under this Article shall prove himself/herself that he/she has been aware of the fact that he/she himself/herself was frighten, rashness, and inexperience, and shall not be presumed to have been in good faith or to have been in imminent circumstances on the ground that the said legal act was considerably lost.

Article 104 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and five others

Daegu High Court Decision 68Na170 delivered on March 20, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

(1) On the first and second grounds:

The facts acknowledged by the court below are as follows. In other words, the plaintiff sold the land (200,000 won and 4 pieces) as a problem in this case to Defendant 1 on September 5, 1962, and received the full amount at that time. However, Defendant 2, who introduced this sale, without permission, went through the registration of ownership transfer for the above land under the name of the purchaser, the procedure for ownership transfer registration was passed again for Defendant 2 to Defendant 1 on the registry. The court below was just in examining the above facts under the premise for recognizing the above facts, and there was no such ground for violation of the rules of evidence as alleged in the arguments. The court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the fact-finding and attack of the court below without any reasonable ground for finding facts, and the purport of the court below's misapprehension of the legal principles as to the sale of the above land is nothing more than the non-party's assertion that the plaintiff's husband sold the above land together with the non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party.

(2) Article 104 of the Civil Act provides for the third ground for the application of the legal principle as to unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act. The court below shall prove in its assertion that it was frighten, rashness, or inexperience. In order to prove this point, the court below has properly determined that only the evidence produced by the plaintiff does not recognize the above facts. In light of the record, there is no error in the process of fact-finding conducted by the court below. Interpretation of the above provisions of the Civil Act is not presumed to have been done in good faith because the legal act was considerably unfair. Moreover, interpretation of the above provisions of the Civil Act does not seem to have been presumed to have been done in good faith. Moreover, it does not necessarily mean that the market price sold fake land of KRW 2,534,00 at KRW 20,000, and it does not necessarily mean that there was an imminent circumstance. The court below is just in holding that Article 104 of the Civil Act cannot be applied to the sale act in this case. It did not err by misapprehending

(3) As to the fourth ground of appeal, according to the witness list as requested by the plaintiff in Chapter 422 of the record, the plaintiff applied for a party examination against the defendant 2, but the plaintiff withdrawn the above application on February 13, 1969 before it was adopted. The argument is based on the premise that the above defendant's summons was not complied with without any justifiable reason, but the above defendant's summons cannot be adopted.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet