1. All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the Defendant-Counterclaim Claim filed in the trial are dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts that the contract of this case was null and void in accordance with Article 104 of the Civil Act, since the contract of this case was concluded so far after the marriage, the real estate owner was only able to live in the permanent real estate register so far, while the real estate owner was not experienced in the real estate sale contract.

The unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act is established when there exists an objective imbalance between benefit and benefit in return, and a transaction which has lost balance as such subjectively takes place using gymnasty, rashness, or inexperience of the victimized party. The term “unexperienced experience” means a lack of experience in a particular area, not a lack of experience in a particular area. It means a lack of experience in ordinary daily life experience. Whether a party was in a state of old-age or inexperienced experience should be determined specifically by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as his age, occupation, degree of education and social experience, property status, and degree of imminentness of the situation at which the party was faced.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s assertion that the sales contract of this case was in a state of rash, experience, etc. and intent to use the contract, i.e., intent to use the contract in bad faith, is in bad faith, and thus null and void pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Act. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the sales contract of this case was null and void pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Act is an unfair legal act.