Expert Calls for Standardization of Fees for Professional Guardianship in South Korea

As South Korea enters an aging society, interest in the adult guardianship system is growing. This system allows courts to appoint guardians for adults who are unable to manage their affairs due to illness, disability, or old age, leading to an anticipated increase in demand for professional guardians.

In response to this trend, the Korea Guardianship Association, led by President Park Eun-soo, has established a new Decision Support Research Institute, appointing Kim Yoon-jung, a partner at YK Law Firm and a former family and juvenile court judge, as its first director. The institute aims to propose legislation and policies that effectively guarantee the self-determination rights of individuals with decision-making difficulties, such as those with developmental disabilities or dementia.

In an interview with Aju Economy, Kim, who has over 20 years of experience as a judge and lawyer, shared insights on the current state and future of South Korea's guardianship system, as well as recent trends in family and divorce litigation. Below are excerpts from the interview.

- You identified the standardization of fees for professional guardians as a key task for the Decision Support Research Institute. What do you see as the main confusion arising from the current fee assessment methods?

The biggest confusion in the current adult guardianship practice is that the fee standards do not correlate with the complexity of the case, the scope of work, or the duration of service, leading to significant variations between courts and cases. As a result, professional guardians find it difficult to secure predictable fees relative to their workload, while wards may experience guardianship initiation without sufficient explanation of the cost structure.

The issue is compounded by the fact that fees are often calculated based solely on management tasks, failing to adequately reflect the responsibilities involved in decision-making support, medical and welfare coordination, and asset management. Through this research, we aim to establish standardized fee criteria based on the scope and complexity of work, ensuring predictability and sustainability for professional guardians, which will ultimately enhance the quality of guardianship services. Clear fee standards will enable qualified professionals to participate reliably in guardianship work, benefiting the wards.

- Having previously worked as a family and juvenile court judge and a research fellow at the Judicial Policy Research Institute, how do you view the limitations of the guardianship system from both perspectives?

From the perspective of the court and research institutions, the core challenge of the guardianship system was refining its design and principles, focusing on the necessity of guardianship, the principle of minimal intrusion, and the protective structure for wards.

In contrast, the primary challenge I face in practice today is the feasibility of implementing these principles. While the courts focus on creating and interpreting the system, the real challenge in the field is ensuring that the system operates effectively in people's lives. Actual cases often involve diverse ward conditions, family conflicts, property disputes, and medical decision-making, which cannot be resolved solely through legal principles.

The decision-making support model ideally maximizes self-determination rights, but in reality, practical judgment burdens arise in cases where the boundaries of decision-making capacity are unclear. This highlights the gap between the ideal standards set by the courts and the practical feasibility in the field.

- With the aging society, the importance of voluntary guardianship is being emphasized. However, there are concerns about its underutilization in practice. What institutional improvements do you believe are necessary to activate voluntary guardianship?

In the context of rapid aging, nuclear family structures, and the surge in single-person households, voluntary guardianship must become an essential tool for life planning rather than an option. Everyone will inevitably face aging and cognitive decline, and we must prepare for the possibility of diminished cognitive abilities. Voluntary guardianship allows individuals to designate trusted persons to manage and dispose of their assets while they are still healthy and cognitively intact.

Unlike adult guardianship, which involves post-facto intervention by the state or courts, voluntary guardianship is fundamentally aligned with the ultimate principle of the adult guardianship system: respecting self-determination rights. However, despite its innovative and necessary nature, the primary reason for its lack of activation in practice is insufficient government promotion and a lack of public awareness.

Many people are still unaware of the existence of this system or mistakenly believe it is only for the wealthy. Therefore, to promote voluntary guardianship, it is urgent to shift public perception through national-level campaigns, recognizing it as a fundamental right and essential preparation for aging. Additionally, simplifying notarization procedures and distributing standard contract models linked to medical and financial institutions are necessary institutional improvements to help citizens confidently protect themselves from the anxieties of an aging society.

- Traditionally, family guardians have been central to the adult guardianship system, but the role and necessity of corporate guardians are increasingly emphasized. What advantages and social significance do corporate guardians hold, and how do you see the future development of the guardianship system?

Historically, the adult guardianship system has operated on a family-centered structure. However, as aging, the rise of single-person households, weakened family ties, and complex asset structures progress simultaneously, the areas that family guardians can manage are increasingly limited.

In this changing landscape, corporate guardians can serve as a key pillar in ensuring the professionalism and sustainability of the guardianship system, rather than merely a substitute. While family guardians have the advantage of emotional bonds, they also face structural limitations, such as conflicts of interest, emotional involvement, and issues with long-term management.

In contrast, corporate guardianship decisions are made by organizational systems rather than individuals, providing a stable structure in terms of objectivity, professionalism, and continuity. In modern guardianship structures, where asset management and medical and welfare decisions are intertwined, a corporate-based decision-making structure that allows for multidisciplinary review is becoming increasingly important. However, it is essential that corporate guardianship also has accountability and oversight mechanisms in place. In the future, it is likely that family and corporate guardianship will evolve in a way that differentiates their respective roles rather than competing with each other.

Nonetheless, in the medium to long term, there is a strong possibility that the proportion of corporate guardianship, centered on expertise, will gradually increase in response to changes in social structures. Ultimately, the key issue is not who is better, but designing the optimal decision-making support structure that fits the circumstances of the ward, and the role of corporate guardians will likely become more significant in that process.

- Last year, the Constitutional Court's ruling on the reserved portion of inheritance led to significant changes in family inheritance law. What limitations did you observe in the previous reserved portion rulings during your time as a presiding judge, and what are the most significant changes you have felt in actual inheritance litigation since this decision?

The limitations of the previous reserved portion rulings were characterized by a rigid judgment structure overly focused on formal equality. The actual diversity of contributions and family relationships was not adequately reflected, leading to prolonged disputes. Since the Constitutional Court's ruling, the most significant change is that inheritance disputes are shifting from a results-oriented focus to a process-oriented one. It is no longer just about restoring legal shares but also actively contesting contributions made during the deceased's lifetime, the substance of family relationships, and the process of asset formation. Practically, there is a noticeable increase in attempts to resolve disputes through negotiation and mediation, and the courts are also moving away from mechanical assessments toward more precise fact-finding inquiries.