over an extended period of time" and the Disability Discrimination Act also upholds the same definition. ○ Insurance Company's Rejection of Loan Application by a Person with Intellectual Disability Mr. Nam (age 51) filed a complaint to the Commission in February 2010 alleging that "A" Life Insurance Company rejected his loan application on the ground of intellectual disability." In response, "A" Insurance Company argued that it decided to reject the loan application just because there existed a possibility for future disputes if it grants a loan, as communication ability of the victim with Grade 3 of intellectual ability was unclear, not because of the ground of disability. However, according to the Commission's investigation result, the complainant was engaged in economic activities without any problem, continuing his employment until now. In addition, the insurance company at first informed the victim without the knowledge that he was a person with intellectual disability that he could receive loan of up to KRW 15 million if he uses his home as collateral. However, upon being informed that he is a person with Grade 3 in intellectual disability, the insurance company rejected his loan application, citing the ground that his communication ability is unclear without substantiating his communication ability and there is a potential for future disputes. In addition, loan screening regulations the insurance company cites as the ground for loan rejection are based on "de facto complete legal capacity to rights and acts," whose criteria and scope is extremely vague. The Commission also considered that when assessing one's ability to communicate, the decision should be made based on individual assessments on various areas, not only including the degree of disability, but also including intelligent quotients, communication ability, social age, and ability in vocational areas. Based on these grounds, the Commission concluded that the accused's act of rejecting Chapter 4. Investigations and Remedies: Discriminatory Acts 95