All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2023Da301712 Decided March 12, 2024 【Agreed Amount】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Requirements for the establishment, and regulatory purpose, of an unfair juristic act stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act Method of determining whether any remarkable imbalance exists between a benefit and a counter-benefit Where a party who argues that he or she committed a juristic act under strained circumstances is exempt from any disadvantage that may be gained in a contractual relationship with a third party as a result of the juristic act, whether such exemption from the disadvantage may be evaluated as a benefit of the other party as referred to in the relevant juristic act (negative in principle) [2] Meaning of the term “strained circumstances” and method of determining whether the party was under strained circumstances Where a party, who determines that the advantage that he or she may get by failing to stick to a contract far outweigh the disadvantage that he or she may get thereby, brings any urgent condition of needfulness upon himself or herself in a relationship with the other party to the contract by committing any act against the contract with the intention of accepting such disadvantage, predicting the occurrence of such disadvantage, whether this may be easily recognized as strained circumstances as referred to in Article 104 of the Civil Act (negative) [3] In a case where Party A entered into a sales contract, selling the above house and land therefor to Stock Company C which intends to purchase the above house and land therefor and parcels of land adjacent thereto and build a multi-unit house after during the period of the housing lease contract concluded between Party A and Party B in relation to a house owned by Party A, including a special stipulation seen to the effect that “Party A should evict the lessee, and if Party A fails to evict the lessee until the balance payment date, Party A should be liable for the penalty of another real estate sales contract as well as the penalty of the above sales contract”; was in danger of paying a large penalty as Party B, who terminated the sales contract by mutual consent, did not respond to Party A’s request for the delivery of the subject matter of lease; and thus had a mutual agreement including that if Party A receives the balance of the sales contract, Party A should pay the settlement money upon the delivery of the subject matter, corresponding to ten times greater than the security money for the lease, as well as the security money for the lease and moving expenses to Party B; and Party D underwrote Party A’s debt according to the agreement, the case holding that there were errors in the judgment of the lower court, which viewed that no remarkable imbalance exists between a benefit and a counter-benefit by including the amount equivalent to the penalty whose payment was avoided by delivering the subject matter of lease according to above agreement in Party B’s benefit, but when considering all the circumstances such as the reason for, and background, bringing Parties A and D to such condition of needfulness, readily concluding that the above agreement was concluded under strained circumstances of Parties A and D is difficult, and thus the conclusion of the lower court which viewed the above agreement as valid is just | |
