All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2019Da213344 Decided May 26, 2022 【Loan】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Whether the meaning and existence of mental capacity should be determined separately with regard to a specific juristic act (affirmative) Whether the legal meaning and effect thereof as well as the ordinary meaning of a juristic act should be comprehensible to recognize mental capacity (affirmative) [2] Standard of determining whether people with intellectual disabilities have mental capacity [3] In a case where Stock Company B instituted a lawsuit seeking the repayment of principal and interest against Party A when Party A, a disabled person with third degree intellectual disability, defaulted on a loan based on a loan agreement which Party A concluded with Stock Company B to raise funds to procure excavators, and, in response thereto, Party A contended that the loan agreement was null and void on the grounds that Party A was devoid of sufficient mental capacity at the time of the loan agreement, the case holding that even though viewing that Party A, a person with diminished mental capacity, could understand the legal meaning and effect of the loan agreement in light of overall circumstances is difficult, and thus there is sufficient room to see that the loan agreement was null and void on the grounds that Party A was devoid of mental capacity at the time of the conclusion of the loan agreement, the lower judgment, which determined otherwise, contains errors such as the misapprehension of the legal principle | |
