A. Whether a sales contract concluded with a party who was subject to a lawsuit for return can be revoked on the ground of an error in the sales contract by recognizing that the party had to return the real estate without any compensation

(b) The case holding that the sale of real estate worth KRW 10,000,000 at a market price of KRW 5,000 shall not be deemed to constitute an unfair juristic act with the expression that it would be clear that the lawsuit would be lost if it is filed, and that it would be better to resolve it, and that it does not constitute an unfair juristic act

A. Even if a sales contract was concluded by recognizing that a return suit would have to be returned without any compensation if the suit for return was filed, this is merely an error in motive, and thus, such motive may not be revoked for this reason, barring special circumstances that the said motive was the content of the sales contract.

B. The case holding that the plaintiff's fraudulent act did not constitute an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act on the ground that the plaintiff's fraudulent act sold real estate amounting to KRW 5,000,000 at a price of KRW 10,000,000 on the ground that the plaintiff's real estate in this case was inherited by the plaintiff and the registration in the name of the defendant should be returned to the plaintiff as the plaintiff should be null and void, and if the plaintiff files a lawsuit, it would be clear that it would be against the defendant.

A. Article 109(1)/B of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Meu187 delivered on October 23, 1984 (Gong1984, 1844) (Gong1984, 184) 84Meu890 delivered on April 23, 1985 (Gong1985, 780) (Gong190, 1355)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Defendant 1, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na7325 delivered on February 19, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding by the court below that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the defendant on November 27, 1988 from 5,00,000 won, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

It is true that the contents of No. 4 (Written Confirmation) are identical to the theory, but the court below held the above fact-finding in addition to the testimony of Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, and Non-Party 3 of the court of first instance. The court below did not err in the rules of evidence by finding the testimony of the above witness and rejecting Non-Party 4's testimony of Non-Party 4 of the court of first instance. The evidence No. 4 did not state any agreement on the purchase price, but it can be recognized that the purchase price was agreed at KRW 5,00,000 according to the testimony of Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, and Non-Party 3. Therefore, it cannot be said that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for the establishment of the sale

On the second ground for appeal

The Defendant’s conclusion of the instant sales contract is acceptable to the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s assertion that it was by Nonparty 2’s deception or coercion, which is the Plaintiff’s agent. The registration of the Defendant’s name was not registered as invalid due to the completion of prescriptive acquisition, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant sold it to the Plaintiff as a defective declaration of intent by causing mistake or appearance by the Plaintiff’s deception or coercion, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cancellation of declaration by fraud or coercion.

In addition, even if the court below concluded the sales contract of this case on the ground that the defendant's possession of the real estate of this case, which was originally owned by the deceased non-party 5, who was the deceased's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father, should return the real estate without any compensation, this is merely a motive mistake, and the defendant cannot cancel the sales contract of this case on the ground that there are no special circumstances that such motive was regarded as the content of the sales contract of this case, and it cannot be said that the amount of KRW 5,00,000, which the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant is the nature of compensation which shall be paid in favor of the

On the third ground for appeal

The defendant's conclusion of the sales contract of this case was made in the state of the defendant's old-age, rash, or inexperience, or that the plaintiff or his representative did not recognize that the sales contract of this case was concluded by using the defendant's status as such. The court below's reasoning that the sales contract of this case cannot be deemed to be significantly unfair is accepted, and the non-party 2 succeeded to the defendant, and the real estate of this case is inherited by the plaintiff and the registration of the defendant's name should be returned to the plaintiff as the grounds are null and void. The registration of the real estate of this case in the name of the defendant of this case should be revoked by the plaintiff, or the registration of the real estate of this case in the name of the defendant of this case should be deemed to be an unfair legal act.

In addition, the market price of the real estate of this case at the time of the sales contract of this case was 10,00,000 won (the original judgment was 9,824,800 won) and it cannot be seen as an unfair juristic act falling under Article 104 of the Civil Act immediately after preventing the sale of the real estate of this case in gold 5,00,000 won. Thus, the judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the unfair juristic act under Article 104 of the Civil Act. It is without merit.

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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)