[1] The meaning of mental capacity, and in a case where a certain legal meaning or effect is granted to a certain legal act, whether it is necessary to understand the legal meaning or effect of the act in order to be recognized as a mental capacity (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a joint and several surety contract was concluded for the debt of the third-class person with a mental retardation of 38 years old who is 58 years old with an intelligence index and is 38 years old whose mental retardation level exceeds 20 million won, the case holding that a joint and several surety contract had no mental capacity to understand the legal meaning and effect at the time of the contract

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10113 decided Oct. 11, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2675)

Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Kim Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorney Kim Young-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Na3679 Decided April 19, 2006

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 2 and 3 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court. Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 are assessed against the said Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Expression of intention means mental ability or intelligence that can be reasonably determined on the basis of normal perception and towing. In particular, in a case where a certain juristic act is granted with a special legal meaning or effect that makes it difficult to understand only the ordinary meaning in a case where it is given, it is necessary to understand not only the ordinary meaning of the act but also the legal meaning or effect in order to recognize a capacity to act. The existence of capacity to act should be determined individually in relation to a specific juristic act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10113, Oct. 11, 2002, etc.).

2. First, we examine Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal.

The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance and affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the plaintiff's claim against the above defendant. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to the capacity of intent, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal No. 1 and No. 2. It did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the capacity of intent at the time of conclusion of the above contract.

In addition, the court below rejected the above assertion by the defendant 1 that the non-party, who is defendant 1, had the above defendant enter into the above credit guarantee contract using his mental condition of defendant 1, and the plaintiff and all employees of the above bank enter into the above contract by abusing it with the above defendant's knowledge that the above defendant was in a mental condition. As to the above argument that the above contract is null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order, it cannot be deemed that the above defendant was in a state of mental disorder, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff or the employees of the above bank were taking advantage of the above defendant's mental condition and caused the above contract to enter into the above contract by abusing the above defendant's mental condition. In light of the records, the court below's measures are just and correct, and

3. Next, we examine Defendant 2 and 3’s grounds of appeal.

A. Upon admitting the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the facts that Defendant 1 was jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff under the above credit guarantee contract as to the conclusion of the above credit guarantee contract, and confirmed the facts that Defendant 2 was jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff under the above credit guarantee contract, and rejected the plaintiff's claim as to each of the defendant 2 and 3's assertion that the defendant 2 had an office capacity at the time when the above joint and several guarantee contract was concluded. The mental appraisal conducted by the court of first instance on March 6, 200 by the above defendant 2 was registered as the disabled of the mental retardation Grade 3, and the above defendant's mental appraisal conducted at the commission of the court of first instance that the above defendant's intelligence index was 58, which was 38 years old at the time of the above joint and several guarantee contract, and was diagnosed as having a majority of the meaning of the guarantee or loan. The above defendant was signed at the time of the above joint and several guarantee contract and submitted a certificate of personal seal impression directly issued.

B. However, this decision of the court below is not acceptable for the following reasons.

According to the records, Defendant 2 is a disabled person who has already been judged as Grade III mental retardation disability at the time of the above joint and several surety contract. As a result of mental appraisal of the above defendant's mental retardation conducted around October 2005, the above defendant's intelligence index is merely 58, the name and address available for reading, it is impossible for him to obtain proper knowledge, except for the name and address, and there is a lack of simple calculation ability or simple caution, and social understanding ability is damaged, and it is judged that the above defendant's intelligence index and social maturity at the time of the above joint and several surety contract are similar to those at the time of the above mental diagnosis. Thus, if the above defendant's intellectual index and social maturity at the time of the conclusion of the above joint and several surety contract are deemed similar to those at the time of the above mental diagnosis, it is deemed that the above defendant's mental capability under the Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities is subject to protection as a mentally ill person with less than 70,000 won, and it cannot be deemed that the above contract was null and void.

C. Ultimately, among the judgment below, the part against Defendant 2 against the judgment below is erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence or in misapprehension of the legal principles as to the capacity of opinion, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and since the plaintiff's claim against Defendant 3 is based on the premise that the above joint and several liability contract is valid, as long as the above joint and several liability contract is deemed null and void, the part against Defendant 3 among the judgment below cannot be maintained any longer. The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 as to the

4. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against Defendant 2 and 3 is reversed without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court. Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal against this part are assessed against the Defendant who lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)