A. Requirements for establishing an unfair juristic act and whether it is necessary in bad faith to do so (affirmative)

B. Whether a mistake in the market price in a sale of real estate constitutes a mistake in the important part of a juristic act (negative)

A. An unfair legal act stipulated under Article 104 of the Civil Act is established only when there exists an objective imbalance between payment and consideration and a subjective transaction that loses such balance is conducted using gambling, rashness, or inexperience of the victimized party. As such, even if the victimized party was in the state of brush, rash, or inexperience, it does not constitute an unfair legal act in the absence of bad faith, i.e., intent to use such act, by being aware of the circumstances of the victimized party, even if the victimized party was in the state of brush, rash, or in the state of rash or influence of the injured party.

(b) An error in the market price in selling or purchasing a real estate shall not be deemed an error only in the motive for the determination of intention to sell or purchase the real estate, nor in the material part of a juristic act.

A. Article 104 of the Civil Act: Article 109 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Da563 delivered on September 13, 1988 (Gong1988, 1265) 91Da5907 delivered on July 9, 1991 (Gong1991, 2121), Supreme Court Decision 92Da84 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 207), 81Da239 delivered on April 10, 1984 (Gong1984, 878), 84Da890 delivered on April 23, 1985 (Gong1985, 780), 90Da17927 delivered on February 12, 191 (Gong1991, 984)

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 91Na5096 delivered on May 22, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. We examine the records. The court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the plaintiff's misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the ability of opinion due to violation of the rules of evidence, although the plaintiff's dismissal of the plaintiff's assertion was somewhat reduced than before the occurrence of the judgment and the ability of thinking, since the cerebriform was overlapped on the right-hand side due to cerebral defect and the cerebral defect caused by the cerebr

2. The unfair legal act stipulated under Article 104 of the Civil Act is established only when there exists an objective imbalance between payment and consideration, and a transaction which loses such balance is conducted using gambling, rashness, or inexperience of the victimized party. Thus, even if the victimized party was in the state of gambling, rash, or inexperience, the injured party does not constitute an unfair legal act in the absence of bad faith, i.e., intent to use the said act, by being aware of the circumstances of the injured party, even though the injured party was in the state of gambling, rash, or in the state of rash experience of the injured party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da5907, Jul. 9, 199; 86Meu563, Sept. 13, 198).

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion of unfair legal acts and anti-social order on the ground that the defendant purchased the land from the plaintiff at a price less than the market price in purchasing it, but there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was absent from old-domination, rashness, or in a state of experience, and that the defendant did not enter into the above sales contract at a low price with the plaintiff's knowledge of these circumstances, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant would enter into the above sales contract at a low price. There is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to unfair legal acts

3. An error in the market price in the sale of real estate is merely a mistake in determining the intention to sell the real estate, and cannot be deemed a mistake in the important part of a juristic act. Accordingly, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's above assertion in the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the expression of intent by mistake, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for the argument.

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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)