2010B00 Declaration of Quasi-Incompetency and guardian

Kim 00

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

Maximum 00

Law Firm 00, Attorney 000

Seoul Family Court Decision on December 10, 2010

May 17, 201

1. The adjudication of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The appellant's appeal is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the claimant.

1. Purport of claim

The principal of the case shall be declared a quasi-incompetent.

2. Purport of appeal;

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The petitioner's request for adjudication shall be dismissed.

1. Factual basis

According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

A. The claimant and the principal of the case are married on June 17, 1953 and married under AA (, BB, CCC (1.DD and 2 South and North and South).

B. On March 29, 2007, the principal of the instant case was expressed to be in accord with the initial dementia at the hospital of 000 on the basis of his opinion, and was hospitalized from May 2010 to the hospital of 19.00 on the hospital of 2010.

C. On October 5, 2010, the principal of the case was transferred to a school-level hospital and received hospitalized treatment continuously, and discharged on December 14, 2010.

D. The discharge above was led by the head of the case principal, South AA, and the principal of the case thereafter is living together with the head of the case.

E. After discharge, the claimant and the remaining children were unable to meet the principal of the case, and they were unable to know the address of the principal of the case.

2. The claimant's assertion;

From the beginning of 2007, the principal of the case began to show the symptoms of dementia, and was receiving long-term hospitalized treatment at the hospital due to aggravation of symptoms. However, the head of South-North AAA released the principal of the case from the desire to read the property under the name of the principal of the case and prevents contact with the applicant and other family members. The principal of the case still has mental and physical weakness who lack normal judgment ability due to dementia, etc., and the head of South-North AAA could cause the life of the principal of the case and the applicant of the case and other family by disposing of the property by abusing the mental and physical weakness state of the principal of the case. Thus, the principal of the case must be declared as quasi-incompetent.

3. Determination

In light of the records, the following circumstances are as follows: ① the principal of the case was present on April 4, 201 on his own as of the hearing date; ② the question of the presiding judge was accurately identified as of the results of the examination of this court; ② the principal of the case appears to have no particular problem in his/her ability to determine his/her property; ② the symptoms of dementia show symptoms; ② the degree is continuously not severe; ③ the principal of the case was under pharmacologic treatment and additional observation; ③ the petitioner submitted a medical certificate stating that the principal of the case has no normal capacity to determine his/her own intention due to dementia (Evidence 11-1, 2) but it is difficult to exclude the possibility that the dispute was sent to the principal of the case, which was diagnosed for a prolonged period of time when the principal of the case was satisfyed, and it is difficult to acknowledge that there was no other special circumstance or experience of his/her family; ④ there is no possibility that the principal of using the same in the process of his/her own mental and physical knowledge and experience as of the case.

Therefore, the claimant's argument seeking a declaration of quasi-incompetency against the principal of the case is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claimant's claim of this case is dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the appeal of the principal of this case is accepted, and it is revoked, and the appellant's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

May 17, 201

The presiding judge shall hear the judge's seat

Judge Lee fixed-term

Judges Park Sung-sung