logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.08.27 2015다27163
소유권말소등기 등
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3, an unfair legal act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act exists objectively in terms of payment and consideration, and such act is established when a transaction that lost balance is made based on the flash, rash, or experience of the victimized party.

(1) Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The court shall render a judgment as to whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on social justice and the principle of equity, by taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the result of examination of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da38927, Oct. 22, 2002).”

(2) As stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant contract did not constitute an unfair juristic act, on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was in the state of rashness or experience at the time of the instant contract, even if there was an objective apparent imbalance between the performance and the consideration in return for the payment of the instant contract.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely an error in the selection of evidence and the determination of value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court, as the purport of disputing such fact-finding by the court below

In addition, even if examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court erred in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the “rashness” or “unexperienceed experience” and the purpose of and grounds for recognition of the unfair legal act system, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by failing

arrow