(a) If only one of the parties has received payment, whether it can be an unfair legal act;

(b) A declaration of intention made by duress and a declaration of intention by negligence;

A. In order to constitute an unfair juristic act, it is required to lose a significant balance between the benefits and the benefits in return. As such, the issue of imbalance between the benefits and the benefits in return does not arise if only one of the parties is provided without contributing property relations within a quid pro quo meaning, such as the donation.

B. The expression of intention in the expression of intention does not refer to the idea of the voter who intends to express a specific content, and it does not mean that the speaker is true in mind. Thus, even if the property was forced to stand in in mind, even though it was temporarily set aside in the Main mind of the Table, it cannot be said that there was lack of the intention of the internal effect of the donation, insofar as the author decided to make the gift by coercion and made the declaration of intention for the gift accordingly.

A. Article 104 of the Civil Act

A. (2) Supreme Court Decision 92Da48420 delivered on July 16, 1993 (Dong-dong), Supreme Court Decision 92Da5238 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong193,1279)

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na35313, 35320 decided August 13, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim based on its adopted evidence that the gift act of this case was only used as an unlawful method of coercion during the process of its establishment, and that the content of the rights and obligations aimed at it cannot be deemed as a violation of social order, and that the performance of the duty to transfer registration cannot be deemed as a legally compulsory act, and that there is no stipulation of anti-social order or monetary payment, and that the motive of the juristic act indicated or known to the other party does not constitute an anti-social order. Thus, it can be discussed as a defect or defect of expression of intent and its validity can be discussed, but it does not become null and void as a juristic act in anti-social order (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu1402, Dec. 11, 1984; 92Da719, Nov. 27, 1992). Such judgment of the court below is justified and there is no illegality such as misapprehension of legal principles, such as litigation.

2. The court below determined that, on the premise that the degree of coercion to invalidate a legal act by coercion is extremely serious and the freedom of decision-making by the person who declared the intent is completely deprived, the court below should comprehensively consider the evidence, and found that the plaintiff declared the intent of donation of the real estate and received documents, etc. necessary for the transfer of the registration at the end of the receipt by the investigator, etc. of the joint investigation headquarters affiliated with the defendant under the jurisdiction of the defendant, but it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff was in a state of being completely deprived of freedom of decision-making due to coercion, since the plaintiff refused to pay the remaining real estate at the end of the trial of the non-party's refusal, even if the plaintiff refused to pay the continued property contribution by the investigator, etc., at the time of the plaintiff's refusal to pay the property contribution, even after the above non-party's refusal to pay the property contribution would adversely affect the decision-making of the non-party. The judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete deliberation,

3. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the gift of this case is null and void as an unfair act because it is required to lose a significant balance between the payment and the consideration in order to constitute a so-called unfair juristic act. Thus, the other party's payment without the other party's contribution to property relations within a quid pro quo, such as the gift of this case, does not occur in the event of one party's payment, and there is no problem of imbalance between the payment and the consideration. The court below's fact-finding and judgment are justified (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da5238 delivered on March 23, 1993). It did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding

4. The truth in the expression of intention in the expression of intention cannot be deemed as lacking the intention of the internal effect of the donation, so long as the plaintiff decided to make the donation of this case by coercion and made the declaration of intention of the donation accordingly, as long as the author expressed his intention of the donation of this case by coercion, it cannot be deemed as lacking the intention of the internal effect of the donation of this case.

Therefore, the court below's determination that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff's expression of intent of the gift of this case was made without the intention of internal deliberation is just and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as the theory

5. With respect to the plaintiff's assertion that the declaration of intention of the gift of this case was revoked on the ground of coercion, the court below held that since there was no evidence to acknowledge that an armed soldier who had been placed at the plaintiff's house after May 20, 1980 after the above non-party's life life imprisonment was terminated, there was no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff had been in a state of outer appearance even until February 27, 1988 when the above non-party's house was recovered, the plaintiff's right to revoke the plaintiff's right was already extinguished upon the lapse of the exclusion period, since the exercise of the right to revoke the plaintiff's right as the delivery of the complaint of this case was evident more than three years after the date when ratification can be confirmed, since the emergency martial law was removed at the time when the plaintiff can be ratified without forced force, and thus, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the cancellation of the right to cancel the plaintiff's right to cancel, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the cancellation of the right to cancel the plaintiff's right.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)