[1] The meaning of mental capacity and the method of determining its existence

[2] The case holding that a contract to establish a collateral security was null and void as it was concluded upon lack of mental capacity

[1] Expression of intention means the mental ability or intelligence that can be reasonably determined based on the meaning or outcome of one’s act based on normal perception and towing ability, and the existence of a mental capacity should be determined individually in relation to specific legal acts.

[2] The case holding that even if the plaintiff visited a financial institution and affixed a loan of 50,00,000 won to him and affixed a written agreement for a loan for consumption and a written agreement for a mortgage contract, if the plaintiff had lived with his family help without regular education due to low intelligence index from the time of his birth, and as a result of physical appraisal conducted two years and eight months after the above contract date, intelligence index 73 and social age are 6 years old, so it is impossible to accurately write the name and simple, and the plaintiff's own intelligence level is presumed to be significantly different from this, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff was given a loan with a large amount of money at the time of the above contract and provided real estate owned by him as a security, and if it is impossible to repay the loan, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff had a legal ability to understand a series of legal meaning and effects that ownership can be lost due to the execution of the right to collateral security, and therefore the above contract is null and void because it was concluded with lack of intention ability.

[1] Articles 9 and 13 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 9 and 13 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da8986 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2402), Supreme Court Decision 93Da31191 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2598), Supreme Court Decision 95Da34514 delivered on April 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1562)

Plaintiff (Attorney Shin Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon District Livestock Cooperatives (Attorney Kim Dong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 200Na4231 delivered on December 8, 2000

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief filed after the expiration of the period).

1. In full view of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff was incompetent at the time of concluding the contract of this case on January 14, 1997, for the Plaintiff’s assertion that the contract of this case is null and void, based on the Plaintiff’s diagnosis of a mental disorder from a medical corporation mental disorder on June 18, 1998, and the Plaintiff’s physical and mental disorder and the site of this case’s residential housing and site that the Plaintiff resided in order to secure the loan of KRW 26 million. On February 25, 199, the lower court also acknowledged that the Plaintiff had established a mortgage of KRW 45 million with respect to the two parcels owned by the Plaintiff to obtain a loan of KRW 30 million with the Defendant association, and that the Plaintiff had no intention to provide the Plaintiff’s physical and mental disorder as the result of the Plaintiff’s physical diagnosis and the Plaintiff’s consent to provide the Plaintiff’s physical and mental disability certificate to the Plaintiff’s family members after the lapse of the contract of this case.

2. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below.

The capacity of intention refers to mental ability or intelligence that can be reasonably determined based on the meaning or result of his act based on normal perception and ability, and the existence of capacity of intention should be determined individually in relation to specific legal acts.

According to the records, the plaintiff lives with his family help without regular education due to low intelligence index from the early childhood. The plaintiff owns the house at issue in his name, its site, transfer, etc. However, the management of these real estate was conducted by the non-party 1 on behalf of the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff had not received mental diagnosis from the doctor at the time of the contract in this case, the plaintiff was diagnosed as being 64 years of age and 5 months of age and 5 years of age and 73 years of age and 6 years of age as the result of physical appraisal conducted after 2 years and 8 months of the contract in this case, the plaintiff was diagnosed as being unable to provide education and employment due to the lack of regular education, and the non-party 1, who is a dynamic, was found to have been unable to use his name as 6 years of age and 10 years of age as the result of the physical appraisal conducted by 10 years of age and 10 years of age as the result of the examination, the plaintiff's inherent intelligence level can not be easily different.

Therefore, the plaintiff's intelligence index around the contract date of this case is about 70 years of age, the social age is about 6 years of age, and the plaintiff's intelligence index and social maturity is about 70 years of age, and the plaintiff's intelligence index and social maturity is subject to protection as a mental chain (mental disorder) under the Welfare of Disabled Persons Act, and the amount the plaintiff's loan cannot be considered as 50 million won, and the contractual parties are in a position to know the plaintiff's mental state as the four people in all areas of the area of the area of this case. In light of the above, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff was able to understand a series of legal meaning and effects that the plaintiff can lose ownership due to the execution of the right to collateral security, and the contract of this case is null and void because the contract of this case has a lack of mental ability.

Although the plaintiff visited the defendant association directly at the time of the contract of this case and signed and sealed some documents, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff understood the legal meaning and effect of the act in the name of the plaintiff. (However, in this case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit under the name of the plaintiff by delegation of a legal representative to the attorney. In light of the fact that the effect of the litigation by the person without mental capacity should be decided by individual litigation by taking into account various circumstances, such as the degree of his mental capacity, the nature and effect of the litigation in question, etc., the lawsuit of this case is for his own interest, and therefore, it can be recognized as a legal act for his own interest.)

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the legal principles as to the capacity of opinion, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The part of the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)