beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following additional determinations. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the agreement was invalid as an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act, inasmuch as the Plaintiff, a person without experience, could not pay the transfer income tax, and the right to the sale price of the instant real estate, which the Plaintiff gave up as the content of the agreement, and the obligation to pay the transfer income tax imposed under the name of the Plaintiff, which the Defendants agreed to bear as a consideration.
On the other hand, the agreement under the letter of waiver of this case does not settle the accounts concerning the lease proceeds received by the plaintiff for several years, and instead, it cannot be deemed that there is a significant imbalance between payment and consideration as the Defendants paid transfer income tax imposed under the name of the plaintiff and gave up the rights to the proceeds from the sale of the real estate of this case. In addition, it cannot be deemed that there is a significant imbalance between payment and consideration. Article 104 of the Civil Act refers to the "Urgent Difficult", which can be based on economic causes, and may be based on mental or psychological causes. Whether the parties were in a habitual state or not shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as their status and property status, and the degree of urgency of the situation at which they are faced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da2360, Apr. 14, 1992). The mere fact that if the Plaintiff did not pay transfer income tax under the Plaintiff's name, it is likely that the Plaintiff's housing was subject to disposition at the time of waiver of this case.