Article 104 of the Civil Code, requirements and purport of the establishment and provision of unfair juristic act

The purpose of Article 104 of the Civil Act is to regulate any unfair legal act in light of the following: (a) there exists an objective imbalance between benefit and benefit in return; and (b) there is only a subjective imbalance between the lost transaction and the injured party’s flashion, rash, or inless experience.

Article 104 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-

Plaintiff

Attorney Shin Dong-dong General Construction Co., Ltd.

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na49330 delivered on May 25, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act is established only when a transaction that has lost balance exists objectively between payment and benefit in return, and is made based on the brush, rash, or influence of the victimized party. The purpose of the act is to regulate the brush, rash, or influence of the injured party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu563, Sept. 13, 198).

According to the records, if the court below takes measures to enable the defendant company to receive industrial accident compensation insurance for the injury of the plaintiff caused by the accident of this case and decides not to raise a civil or criminal objection against the defendant company, the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant company is considered to be justifiable to reject the plaintiff's assertion that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant company is null and void because it constitutes a serious unfair juristic act caused by the plaintiff's old-age, rashness, and experience, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)