Where an unfair juristic act is null and void, whether it is valid by ratification

Where an unfair juristic act is null and void, the null and void juristic act by ratification shall not become effective.

Articles 104 and 139 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Seonam Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju District Court Decision 93Na1998 delivered on January 13, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

In order to establish an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act, one of the parties to a legal act is in the state of old-age, rashness, or inexperience, and the other party must be aware of such circumstances and intend to use it. Furthermore, there should be a remarkable imbalance between payment and consideration. The above party’s pathy, rashness, and experience are not all required, but only one of them should be satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da19924, Oct. 12, 1993; 93Da296, May 25, 1993; 92Da29337, Oct. 23, 1992).

After examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in comparison with records, the court below held that the contract of this case was null and void as an unfair juristic act for the plaintiff to acquire the land of this case at a price with a significantly low price than 1/5 of the market price of the land by using the poor wife of the defendant company with the same purport, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, misapprehension of legal principles as to unfair juristic act, omission of reasoning or omission of burden of proof, and omission of burden of proof. All arguments are without merit.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is examined.

Where a juristic act is null and void as an unfair juristic act, the null and void juristic act cannot be deemed valid by ratification. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the statutory abstracter is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to ratification, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for discussion.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)