Requirements for establishment of unfair juristic act and the burden of proof of its assertion.

In order to claim the invalidity of a sale and purchase contract as an unfair juristic act, the claimant must have been in the state of poverty, rashness, experience, etc. of the seller, and the buyer should have been aware of the above facts in the buyer's side, and the buyer must prove that the price has been reduced compared to the market price, and that the

Article 104 of the Civil Act, Article 90 of the Gu Residents Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1135 Decided August 29, 1967

Benefits

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na3239 delivered on July 31, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na3239 delivered on July 31, 1970

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The Plaintiff’s Attorney’s ground of appeal (No. 1.2)

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below found that the plaintiff purchased the above land from the defendant 1, 2, and deceased non-party 1 on July 5, 1946 after considering the whole purport of the pleading in Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 7's evidence 1.2.3, 8, 9-1.2, and 13.14.15, which he adopted on December 15, 194, and found that the plaintiff purchased the above land from the defendant 1, 2, and 6,000 won at the time of the price, and determined that Gap evidence 3 (as stated in the copy of the register, Eul evidence 3, as stated in Eul evidence 4) No. 5's evidence 6 (as stated in Eul evidence 4, the decision of approval of the successful bid, 5's evidence 1 to 6,000 won, and that the plaintiff and the non-party 2's testimony and appraisal as the result of the above examination of evidence 1 to 0's own opinion and evidence 6's evidence 1 to 2.

However, in order to claim invalidation of the sales contract as an unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding Defendant 1’s sale of the land at the time of the sale of the land to the seller, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the sale price at the time of the sale of the land at the time of the first instance court’s decision, it should have been aware that the seller had been at the time of the sale of the land at the time of the first instance court’s first instance decision. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the sale price at the time of the first instance court’s first instance judgment, and by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the first instance judgment regarding the first instance court’s 7th anniversary of the fact that the Plaintiff was at the time of the sale of the land at the time of the first instance court’s first instance judgment, and thus, it should be proven that the Plaintiff was at the time of the sale of the land at the time of the first instance court’s first instance judgment and the first instance court’s first instance judgment regarding the sale of the land as evidence.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices under Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)