1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. On February 5, 2013, a sales contract was concluded between the deceased and the defendant B with respect to the area of 661 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si, U.S. (hereinafter “instant land”), and on March 13, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Defendants’ future.

B. On May 7, 2014, E died, and at the time of death, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the son F were alive.

【Ground for recognition】An absence of dispute, and an entry of Gap 1 through 4

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The sales contract of this case for the primary claim is an act of a person without mental capacity because the deceased was in a state of mental disability Grade II at the time, and if G entered into a contract as an agent of the deceased, it is an unauthorized representative if G entered into a contract as an agent of the deceased. The sales contract of this case constitutes an unfair juristic act where the officially announced value of the land exceeds KRW 60 million, and thus the sales contract of this case is null and void.

B. Even if the instant sales contract is deemed valid, the Plaintiffs were to cancel the instant sales contract by delivering the instant complaint, since only KRW 28.5 million out of the purchase price of KRW 50 million was paid, and the remainder was not paid.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay 28.5 million won to the plaintiff for restitution, and at the same time, to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the instant sales contract was concluded by the deceased as the party, since the sales contract (A1) prepared at the time of the instant sales contract is written by the deceased as the seller, the seal impression of the deceased is affixed, and the certificate of seal impression attached thereto is also issued directly by the deceased, as seen in the following paragraphs.

Therefore, the argument of unauthorized Representation against this is without merit to examine the remainder.

(b).