beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.
Reasons
1. The main issue of this case in the trial of acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is whether the deceased H had the capacity to act at the time of donation of the real estate of this case and compensation to the defendants, and whether the plaintiff's repeated filing of criminal complaint against the defendants constitutes a tort of abuse of right. The reason for this part is that this court is erroneous in the indication of the real estate stated in the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the list of real estate stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is the same as the stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the alteration of part of the reason for the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
The contents of the 6th through 6th (Article 1(c) of the first instance judgment) at the bottom of the 5th judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
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 necessary to understand not only the ordinary meaning of the act, but also the legal meaning or effect in order to recognize the ability to act. The existence of capacity to act should be determined individually in relation to specific juristic acts.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da29358 Decided September 22, 2006). The party asserting the invalidity of a juristic act on the ground of his/her capacity to perform his/her duties bears the burden of proof.
[See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53093, 53109 (Counterclaim) Decided March 13, 2014, see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da53093, 53109). According to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 and evidence Nos. 2, H, the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, is the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendants.