Judging Capacity in Korean Private Law
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Most jurisdictions of the civilian tradition assume that a person needs to have a certain degree of mental capacity to take part in legal transactions. The Korean Civil Code also presupposes the capacity to form an intent as a prerequisite of any valid juridical act, although its definition is not expressly given. Doctrine and case law try to understand the concept from a cognitive perspective, concentrating their efforts on scrutinizing the cognitive capabilities of the concerned person. The author disagrees with this approach, whose definition is too vague to handle in practice and has a danger of discrimination. It is instead submitted that volitional elements must be integrated into the concept of capacity. According to this test, the capacity is to be denied only when cognitive disturbances interfere with forming an intent to such a degree that it is impossible to speak of a self-determination. This conclusion is justified by the principle of private autonomy and some convincing examples.
Abstract
Most jurisdictions of the civilian tradition assume that a person needs to have a certain degree of mental capacity to take part in legal transactions. The Korean Civil Code also presupposes the capacity to form an intent as a prerequisite of any valid juridical act, although its definition is not expressly given. Doctrine and case law try to understand the concept from a cognitive perspective, concentrating their efforts on scrutinizing the cognitive capabilities of the concerned person. The author disagrees with this approach, whose definition is too vague to handle in practice and has a danger of discrimination. It is instead submitted that volitional elements must be integrated into the concept of capacity. According to this test, the capacity is to be denied only when cognitive disturbances interfere with forming an intent to such a degree that it is impossible to speak of a self-determination. This conclusion is justified by the principle of private autonomy and some convincing examples.
참고문헌 (12)
- Phillip Hellwege, "Capacity in The Max Planck Encyclopedia of European Private Law II", pp.137~141 (2012), Oxford University Press
- Guido Alpa, "Italian Private Law", pp.34~35 (2007), Routledge-Cavendish
- Eun Young Lee, , pp.155~ (2009), Pakyoungsa
- 이진기, "법률행위능력과 의사능력제도에 대한 비판적 검토", 민사법학, (46), pp.257~289 (2009), 한국민사법학회
- Yoon Chick Kwack, , pp.109~110 (2013), Pakyoungsa
- 제철웅, "성년후견법의 시행준비작업상의 몇 가지 이론적, 실천적 문제", 가족법연구, 27(1), pp.1~40 (2013), 한국가족법학회
- 이준현, "의사무능력자의 법률행위 - 대상판결 : 대법원 2009.1.15. 선고 2008다58367 판결 -", 인권과 정의, (404), pp.94~112 (2010), 대한변호사협회[DOI]
- Clemens Cording, "Willensbestimm ung Zwischen Recht und Psychiatrie", pp.45~ (2005), Springer
- Jeung Han Kim, , pp.120~ (2013), Pakyoungsa
- Andreas Thier, "Demenz und Recht", pp.75~76 (2010), Nomos
- Hein Kötz, "European Contract Law", pp.159~160 (2017), Oxford University Press
- Cording, "Psychiatrische Begutachtungen im Zivilrecht", pp.44~ (2017), Pabst
