A. Whether the act of anti-social order can be deemed null and void in a case where the illegality is discovered in the process of establishing the donation (negative)

B. Whether donation without compensation can be invalidated as an unfair legal act (negative)

A. In a case where an illegal act is opened in the process of the formation of the gift, the legal act does not constitute an act of anti-social order, aside from discussing whether it is effective as a matter of defect or defective declaration of intent.

B. A juristic act which has manifestly lost fairness as stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act refers to an act of obtaining unfair economic benefits by allowing the other party to return in return that has remarkably lost balance compared to his own benefit. Thus, a juristic act without any consideration such as an act of donation does not constitute a juristic act of a nature in which the other party can realize fairness.

A. Article 103 of the Civil Act: Article 104 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1402 decided Dec. 11, 1984 (Gong1985,163) (Gong163) 92Da719 decided Nov. 27, 1992

Korea Education Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Dongyang General Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Sung-sung, Park Jong-ju, and Kang Jong-won)

Attorney Lee Jae-han et al., Counsel for the Foundation for Broadcast Culture

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na21724 delivered on October 6, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the first ground for appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the act of donating the shares of this case to the non-party Republic of Korea is null and void in accordance with Article 103 of the Civil Act on the ground that the legal act does not constitute anti-social order, apart from discussing whether it is effective as a matter of doctor's defect or defective declaration of intention, in the process of establishing a donation which is a juristic act, as in this case, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the act of donating the shares of this case to the non-party Republic of Korea constitutes null and void in accordance with Article 103 of the Civil Act. In light of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is justified and (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Meu1402, Dec. 11, 1984; 92Da719, Nov. 27, 1992). Thus

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the act of donation in this case is null and void on the ground that the act of donation in this case is a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness as provided in Article 104 of the Civil Code refers to an act of obtaining unfair profit by allowing the other party to make a return which has considerably lost balance compared to his own benefit. Thus, without any consideration, a juristic act which one party provides a unilateral benefit to the other party, such as the act of donation in this case, is not a juristic act of the nature that can ensure fairness or fairness, and it is not recognized that the act of donation in this case was made due to the plaintiff's old-age, rashness, or experience. In light of related evidence and the records and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to an unfair juristic act, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the act of donation in this case was revoked by coercion, on the ground that there is no evidence to support that the act of donation in this case was an expression of intent made by duress. The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the evidence relation as stated by the court below, and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law of illegality or inconsistency with the rules of evidence which erred in the facts against the rules of evidence without making a proper deliberation as to the process of the lawsuit,

4. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 4

In sum, the theory is merely against the criticism that the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the limitation period of the right to cancel a declaration of intent by coercion, in short, an additional or family judgment of the court below, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

5. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 5

Nor can we accept the conclusion of the judgment of the court below on the premise of the fact that the court below did not recognize (the fact that the contribution act in this case is an expression of intent by coercion).

6. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)