2. The case principal’s limited guardian (corporate registration number: (corporate registration number omitted), office: Seocho-gu Seoul (Seodong and △△ Building omitted), and representative: Nonparty 4 shall be appointed as a director);

3. The scope of an act for which the principal of the case shall obtain the consent of his/her limited guardian, the scope of his/her right to representation, and the scope of his/her right for his/her limited guardian to determine the personal affairs of the principal of the case shall be as specified

4. A limited guardian shall prepare and submit to this court a list of the case principal's properties (attached to the results of inquiries about the financial transaction inquiry service of an heir) as of the date this adjudication becomes final and conclusive, within two months from the date this adjudication becomes final and conclusive.

5. A limited guardian shall prepare a report on his/her guardianship affairs (base date: the same month as the day the adjudication becomes final and conclusive each year) each year beginning one year after the date this adjudication becomes final and conclusive, and submit it to this court;

(a) Commencement of limited guardianship;

As a result of the examination of the principal of the case, comprehensively taking into account the medical record of the case, the fact-finding reply to each hospital, and the overall purport of the investigation report by the family investigator, the principal of the case complained of the medical staff in 2010, 2012 and 2013 about the time and place of memory disorder and place of memory disorder, etc. Accordingly, the principal of the case was continuously prescribed for dementia-related treatment, such as Abropt from 2010 to 2010, and Ebropt, and Ebroil, etc. The principal of the case was able to return to the medical staff in question on February 3, 2016 at the first day of the examination of the case, and on the physical records of the presiding judge "195 years", and on the records of the investigation of the case, it appears that the investigator of the case was insufficient to report on the date and place of the investigation, and that the investigator of the case was unable to present or lost at the meeting of 51,716.

According to the above facts, it can be recognized that the principal of the case is in a state of insufficient ability to handle affairs due to mental constraints such as disease, old age, etc., so the principal of the case shall commence limited guardianship.

B. Judgment on the argument of the principal of the case

(1) The assertion as to the lack of the procedure for physical examination of the principal of the case

Although the representative of the principal of the case asserts that there is a lack of material to determine whether or not the principal of the case has any mental restraint, the above materials alone are sufficient to determine the present mental state of the principal of the case, so it is not necessarily necessary to conduct the physical examination of the principal of the case (proviso of Article 45-2 (1) of the Family Litigation Act), and the principal of the case has waived the opportunity to prove that there is no mental restraint by voluntarily leaving from the physical examination procedure that consented to and participated in the execution of the case, so the above assertion is rejected.

(2) The assertion that it goes against the will of the principal of the case

The representative of the principal of the case asserts that the principal of the case should not commence guardianship in light of the purpose of the adult guardianship system, since the intention of opposing the commencement of guardianship is clear.

In accordance with the ideology of the adult guardianship system, such as respect for the right to self-determination and remaining capacity of the ward, and respect for the necessity of guardianship and supplement thereof, the family court shall consider the intention of the principal of the case when rendering a judgment to commence guardianship (Articles 9(2) and 10(2) of the Civil Act). However, if there is a problem with the mental or communication capacity of the principal of the case, or if the intention of the principal of the case is distorted by the interests or repeated learning, etc. of related persons such as relatives surrounding the principal of the case, the court shall determine whether to commence guardianship from the perspective of guardianship

In this case, the principal of this case appears to have expressed his dissenting opinion to the commencement of guardianship formally, but in light of the examination date of this case and the various statements and actions, which are seen in the hospitalization appraisal procedure in the Geandong Hospital, it is difficult for the principal of this case to clearly understand the meaning of adult guardianship system or the trial of this case, the meaning or purpose of mental emotions, etc., or to clearly express his/her genuine opinion about the commencement of guardianship and mental emotions based on his/her understanding. In addition, even if the dissenting opinion of the principal of this case is based on his/her own intention, it is difficult to say that the principal of this case is in a state of mental constraints as seen earlier, and even if the dissenting opinion of the principal of this case is based on his/her own intention, there is still dispute between his/her personal affairs and the relatives surrounding his/her property, it is reasonable for the guardian and the court to properly protect and supervise the principal of this case, and thus, the principal of this case shall not be accepted.

2. Appointment of a limited guardian;

Since the conflict between the children of the principal of this case over the protection of his personal affairs, the management of his property, the management of the company, etc. is continuing, if one of them entrusts his guardianship affairs to any one, the dispute over guardianship affairs may continue. Therefore, an expert, a guardianship corporation, which can perform guardianship affairs in a neutral and objective standpoint for the welfare of the principal of this case, shall be appointed as a limited guardian.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it shall be judged as ordered.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Sung-woo