Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
Opening adult guardianship in a limited guardianship claim, and waiving the physician's opinion
Supreme Court, June 10, 2021, 2020Seu596 (ruling)
Case name: 성년후견개시
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
In a case where the opening of limited guardianship has been claimed, may the family court open adult guardianship instead, and may it open either form of guardianship without a physician's opinion when other sufficient material exists to assess the person's mental state?
Holding
Both questions were answered in the affirmative. Because these proceedings are non-contentious family proceedings under Article 2(1)(ii)(a) of the Family Litigation Act, the family court may decide without being bound by the parties' assertions and in a protective, purposive way, taking the claim's content and grounds, the person's own will and the purposes of both guardianship systems into account. Article 45-2(1) of that Act does not require the capacity question to be settled by the physician's opinion; it requires the opening requirements to be decided on the basis of the person's mental ability as understood medically, so where other sufficient material exists, the court may open either form of guardianship without a physician's opinion.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
성년후견이나 한정후견 개시의 청구가 있는 경우 가정법원은 청구 취지와 원인, 본인의 의사, 성년후견 제도와 한정후견 제도의 목적 등을 고려하여 어느 쪽의 보호를 주는 것이 적절한지를 결정하고, 그에 따라 필요하다고 판단하는 절차를 결정해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where a claim for the commencement of adult guardianship or limited guardianship is made, the family court must determine which form of protection is appropriate in consideration of the gist and grounds of the claim, the intention of the person concerned, the purposes of the adult guardianship system and the limited guardianship system, and the like, and must thereupon decide the procedure it deems necessary.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
재항고를 기각한다. 재항고비용은 재항고인이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The re-appeal is dismissed. The cost of the re-appeal shall be borne by the re-appellant.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
청구 취지와 원인, 본인의 의사, 성년후견 제도와 한정후견 제도의 목적 등을 고려하여 어느 쪽의 보호를 주는 것이 적절한지를 결정하고
Unofficial English translation
determine which form of protection is appropriate in consideration of the gist and grounds of the claim, the intention of the person concerned, the purposes of the adult guardianship system and the limited guardianship system, and the like, and
Factors
- 청구 취지와 원인, 본인의 의사, 성년후견 제도와 한정후견 제도의 목적 등을 고려하여
- 성년후견 개시의 요건을 충족하고 본인도 성년후견의 개시를 희망한다면
- 피성년후견인이나 피한정후견인이 될 사람의 정신상태를 판단할 만한 다른 충분한 자료가 있는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• in consideration of the gist and grounds of the claim, the intention of the person concerned, the purposes of the adult guardianship system and the limited guardianship system, and the like,
• where the requirements for commencing adult guardianship are satisfied and the person concerned also wishes the commencement of adult guardianship,
• where there is other sufficient material from which to determine the mental state of the person who is or will become a person under adult guardianship or a person under limited guardianship
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
따라서 한정후견의 개시를 청구한 사건에서 의사의 감정 결과 등에 비추어 성년후견 개시의 요건을 충족하고 본인도 성년후견의 개시를 희망한다면 법원이 성년후견을 개시할 수 있고, 성년후견 개시를 청구하고 있더라도 필요하다면 한정후견을 개시할 수 있다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, in a case where the commencement of limited guardianship is claimed, if, in light of the results of a physician's examination and the like, the requirements for commencing adult guardianship are satisfied and the person concerned also wishes the commencement of adult guardianship, the court may commence adult guardianship, and even where the commencement of adult guardianship is claimed, it must be regarded that limited guardianship may be commenced if necessary.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How extensive must the other material be before it is sufficient to replace a physician's opinion on the person's mental state under Article 45-2(1)?
A later decision defining what counts as other sufficient material under Article 45-2(1) would require this entry to be read again. An amendment to Article 9 or Article 12 of the Civil Code on the requirements for adult or limited guardianship, or to Article 45-2 of the Family Litigation Act, would also change the reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary reading labels the standard as holistic consideration, while the independent reading labels it as requirement setting, though both describe the same factors that the court weighs.
성년후견 개시의 요건을 충족하고 본인도 성년후견의 개시를 희망한다면 법원이 성년후견을 개시할 수 있고Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the ruling as setting a new standard, while the independent reading could not confirm a precedent relation from the holding text.
따라서 한정후견의 개시를 청구한 사건에서 의사의 감정 결과 등에 비추어 성년후견 개시의 요건을 충족하고 본인도 성년후견의 개시를 희망한다면 법원이 성년후견을 개시할 수 있고, 성년후견 개시를 청구하고 있더라도 필요하다면 한정후견을 개시할 수 있다고 보아야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Uijeongbu District Court, in its ruling of 13 April 2020 (2020Beu1027), left in place the first-instance ruling that opened limited guardianship although the re-appellant had claimed adult guardianship and no physician's opinion had been taken. It found that the person's capacity to handle affairs was insufficient but, given the capacities that remained, could not be said to be persistently lacking. It relied on an MMSE-DS score of 15 out of 30 on 16 May 2018, a diagnosis of vascular dementia and hospitalisation on 11 November 2018, a K-MMSE score of 13 out of 30 on 3 December 2019, and the family court investigator's opinion that orientation to place and person was fairly good while orientation to time was somewhat impaired.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that a court may open adult guardianship in a limited guardianship claim where the requirements for adult guardianship are met and the person wishes it, and may open limited guardianship even where adult guardianship has been claimed where necessary, so the court below was free to weigh the record and keep the limited guardianship. It also held that Article 45-2(1) permits a decision without a physician's opinion where other sufficient material exists, and dismissed the re-appeal on the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the person's remaining capacities show that the ability to handle affairs is persistently lacking, so that adult guardianship rather than limited guardianship is what the evidence supports.
- A case in which the person does not wish adult guardianship to be opened, since the person's own will is one of the matters the court must weigh.
- A case in which no physician's opinion was obtained and no other material sufficient to assess the mental state exists, since the exception in Article 45-2(1) then does not apply.
Record verification notes
Gather the medical and investigative material the court below relied on, including the MMSE-DS and K-MMSE scores, the diagnosis record and the family court investigator's opinion, and test it against each requirement in Article 9(1) and Article 12(1) of the Civil Code. Then record what the person actually wishes, since that wish was one of the matters weighed. Finally, identify precisely which documents are said to be the other sufficient material under Article 45-2(1), because the exception is tied to the sufficiency of that material.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 한정후견의 개시를 청구한 사건에서 가정법원이 성년후견을 개시할 수 있는 요건 및 성년후견 개시를 청구하고 있더라도 필요한 경우, 한정후견을 개시할 수 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 가사소송법 제45조의2 제1항의 의미 및 피성년후견인이나 피한정후견인이 될 사람의 정신상태를 판단할 만한 다른 충분한 자료가 있는 경우, 가정법원은 의사의 감정이 없더라도 성년후견이나 한정후견을 개시할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, in a case where the commencement of limited guardianship is claimed, the family court may satisfy the requirements for commencing adult guardianship and, even where the commencement of adult guardianship is claimed, commence limited guardianship if necessary (affirmative) [2] The meaning of Article 45-2 paragraph (1) of the Family Litigation Act and whether, where there is other sufficient material from which to determine the mental state of the person who is or will become a person under adult guardianship or a person under limited guardianship, the family court may commence adult guardianship or limited guardianship even without a physician's examination (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 성년후견이나 한정후견에 관한 심판 절차는 가사소송법 제2조 제1항 제2호 (가)목에서 정한 가사비송사건으로서, 가정법원이 당사자의 주장에 구애받지 않고 후견적 입장에서 합목적적으로 결정할 수 있다. 이때 성년후견이든 한정후견이든 본인의 의사를 고려하여 개시 여부를 결정한다는 점은 마찬가지이다(민법 제9조 제2항, 제12조 제2항) 위와 같은 규정 내용이나 입법 목적 등을 종합하면, 성년후견이나 한정후견 개시의 청구가 있는 경우 가정법원은 청구 취지와 원인, 본인의 의사, 성년후견 제도와 한정후견 제도의 목적 등을 고려하여 어느 쪽의 보호를 주는 것이 적절한지를 결정하고, 그에 따라 필요하다고 판단하는 절차를 결정해야 한다. 따라서 한정후견의 개시를 청구한 사건에서 의사의 감정 결과 등에 비추어 성년후견 개시의 요건을 충족하고 본인도 성년후견의 개시를 희망한다면 법원이 성년후견을 개시할 수 있고, 성년후견 개시를 청구하고 있더라도 필요하다면 한정후견을 개시할 수 있다고 보아야 한다. [2] 가사소송법 제45조의2 제1항은 "가정법원은 성년후견 개시 또는 한정후견 개시의 심판을 할 경우에는 피성년후견인이 될 사람이나 피한정후견인이 될 사람의 정신상태에 관하여 의사에게 감정을 시켜야 한다. 다만 피성년후견인이 될 사람이나 피한정후견인이 될 사람의 정신상태를 판단할 만한 다른 충분한 자료가 있는 경우에는 그러하지 아니하다."라고 정하고 있다. 이 규정의 의미는 의사의 감정에 따라 정신적 제약으로 사무를 처리할 능력이 부족하거나 지속적으로 결여되었는지를 결정하라는 것이 아니라, 의학상으로 본 정신능력을 기초로 하여 성년후견이나 한정후견의 개시 요건이 충족되었는지 여부를 결정하라는 것이다. 따라서 피성년후견인이나 피한정후견인이 될 사람의 정신상태를 판단할 만한 다른 충분한 자료가 있는 경우 가정법원은 의사의 감정이 없더라도 성년후견이나 한정후견을 개시할 수 있다.
Order
재항고를 기각한다. 재항고비용은 재항고인이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The re-appeal is dismissed. The cost of the re-appeal shall be borne by the re-appellant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제9조, 제12조, 가사소송법 제2조 제1항 제2호 (가)목 [2] 민법 제9조, 제12조, 가사소송법 제45조의2 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger