beta
Text
1. The defendant on November 19, 2009, as to each real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff was the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff was divorced from the denial in 1984, and there is one special agent under the chain.
B. On September 29, 2009, the Plaintiff or D obtained a certificate of personal seal impression for real estate sale on behalf of the Plaintiff on September 29, 2009, using the certificate of personal seal impression, etc. in custody, after obtaining the Plaintiff’s signature and seal from the proxy letter stating that he/she is delegated with all rights to dispose of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff hospitalized in a convalescent hospital (hereinafter “instant proxy letter”).
C. On September 29, 2009, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with D who represented the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer, such as Paragraph (1) of this Article, by being provided with registration-related documents from D.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 6, 14 and Eul evidence 1 (including additional number)
2. The assertion and judgment asserted that the sales contract of this case is null and void, since the Plaintiff had no capacity to express his signature on the power of attorney at the time of signing.
The mental capacity means mental ability or intelligence that can reasonably determine the meaning or result of one’s act based on normal perception and towing. In particular, in a case where a certain juristic act is given with a special legal meaning or effect that makes it difficult to understand only daily meaning, it is required to understand not only the ordinary meaning of the act, but also the legal meaning or effect in order to recognize the mental capacity. The existence of mental capacity should be determined individually in relation to specific juristic acts.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10113 Decided October 11, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Da58367 Decided January 15, 2009, etc.) Doctrine, A, Articles 2, 5, and 8.