Article 57 of the Civil Act: Requirements for Rescission of a contract of gift under Article 557

Article 557 of the Civil Act provides that the rescission of a contract of gift on the ground of a change in the status of the donor’s property shall satisfy the requirements such as that if the status of the donor’s property at the time of donation significantly changes compared to those after the donation, if the ownership of the real estate for the purpose of donation is transferred to the donee

Article 557 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da1833 delivered on October 12, 1976 (Gong1976, 9391) Supreme Court Decision 90Da17491 Delivered on April 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 1372)

Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and four others, the deceased Nonparty 1’s taking-off of lawsuit (Attorney Park Im-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na3297 delivered on June 28, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. The defendants' grounds of appeal (the grounds of appeal on the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed are limited to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief) are examined.

A. As to the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendants' assertion that the land of this case was excluded from the site of public facilities is justified. It cannot be said that the court below failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations or violated the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence. There is no ground for appeal.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The rescission of a contract of gift pursuant to Article 557 of the Civil Act shall meet the requirements such as that the status of the donor at the time of donation significantly changes compared to those after the donation, and that the ownership of the real estate for the purpose of donation will be transferred to the donee. (See Supreme Court Decision 90Da17491 delivered on April 12, 191.)

In this regard, the court below's rejection of the defendants' assertion on the rescission of gift pursuant to Article 557 of the Civil Act on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the status of the donor Nonparty 1 or Defendant 2 was significantly changed, which is the donor, is just and acceptable. The judgment below did not err by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the rescission of gift, such as the theory of lawsuit. The Supreme Court ruling cited in the theory of lawsuit is not appropriate in this case where the issue differs. There is no reason

C. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

According to relevant evidence and records, the court below is just in holding that the obligation of the above non-party 1 and defendant 2 to transfer ownership due to the gift contract for the land of this case was impossible due to non-party 2's completion of ownership transfer registration on June 11, 1991, and the judgment below did not contain any errors of law such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

2. Therefore, all appeals are 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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)