Attorney Park Ji-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. Determination on the grounds of appeal as to joint custody

A. A. The parent’s right and duty to rear a minor’s child, which directly affect the welfare of the minor child. Therefore, when the parent designates a minor’s child in a case where the parent is divorced, it shall be determined in the direction that the minor’s child becomes the most helpful for the growth and welfare of the minor child, by comprehensively taking into account all the factors such as the sex and age of the minor’s child, the parents’ patriotism and intent to rear the minor, as well as the existence of economic capacity necessary for fostering, the feasibility, appropriateness, and the possibility of harmonization between the father and the mother’s means of fostering, the relationship between the father and the minor’s child and the minor’s child, and the child’s will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 208Meu380, May 8, 2008; 2013Meu383, 390, Dec. 26, 2013).

According to Articles 837, 909(4) and (5) of the Civil Act, Article 2(1)2(b)3 and 5 of the Family Litigation Act, etc., if the parents divorce, the court does not necessarily designate the person in parental authority or the person in parental authority when determining the person in parental authority or determining the person in parental authority, so it is also possible to designate all the parents divorced as the person in parental authority. However, in cases where both parents divorce in judicial divorce are determined as the person in parental authority, it is necessary to carefully determine whether to grant such permission, taking into account the fact that the parents’ parents’ wrongful acts, abandonment, and unfair treatment are so excessive that it is difficult to continue marriage or divorce. In addition, it is difficult for the parents to transfer their children to the place where the parents’ residence is regularly and without any significant difference in their values, and it is necessary to take into account whether the parents would have an economic and emotional impact on the joint rearing of the children by taking into account the two families’s living environment where the children continue to exist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du2.

B. The court below acknowledged that there are problems such as economic and time losses, negative impacts on children, etc. when designating a divorced parent as a joint rearer, but it seems desirable to designate the Plaintiff and the Defendant as a joint rearer and a joint rearer rather than designating the Plaintiff or the Defendant as the person having parental authority and the person having parental authority and the person under custody of the principal of the case, so that the principal of the case may grow up in a healthy and balanced manner by making the Plaintiff feel the maternity and father-child sufficiently without being able to do so. Accordingly, the court below decided by joint rearing the principal of the case from 17:00 to 17:000 of the day of each week by the Plaintiff from 17:00 to 17:00 of the day of each week by the Plaintiff.

C. However, examining the facts established in the judgment below in light of the legal principles as seen earlier and the records of this case, it seems difficult to expect the Plaintiff and the Defendant to designate himself as a sole person with parental authority and a guardian, not a joint rearing. At present, it is difficult to expect the Plaintiff and the Defendant to cooperate with each other with respect to the joint rearing of the principal of this case by coordinating their opinions in the near future. Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant are able to sufficiently consult on the necessary matters in the process of joint rearing of the principal of this case, this would lead to a significant contribution to reducing the economic and time losses and emotional instability of the principal of this case, while entering the place of residence of the Plaintiff and the Defendant through joint rearing, which would lead to the decision on each parent’s fostering of the principal of this case and be placed in a different physical environment. Rather, it seems that the purpose of the joint rearing of the principal of this case can be achieved through an interview with the other party.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the designation of a custodian, etc., thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the grounds that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were designated as a joint custodian of the principal of the case and determined the method of joint rearing. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point is with merit.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal on the opening of the joint account between the plaintiff and the defendant

The court below held that with regard to the child support to be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant when jointly raising the principal of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant should open a joint account in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant, and up to the day before the principal of this case reaches the majority of majority, the plaintiff deposited 300,000 won per month, and the defendant deposited 90,000 won per month into the above account as of the last day of each month, and used the money deposited in the above account as the child support for the principal

As above, the court below ordered the opening of a joint account in the joint name as above seems to be the result of considering B such as the purport of joint custody.However, as long as it is difficult to maintain the judgment of the court below on the joint custody, the part ordering the opening of a joint account in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant for the purpose of the joint custody need to re-examine the part ordering the opening of a joint account in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant for the purpose of the joint custody, and determine the method of sharing the cost of fostering the defendant for the purpose of the joint custody. However, if the court directly orders the specific method of the payment and use of the cost of the child support such as the opening of a joint account in the joint name, it is pointed out that it is necessary to confirm the specific method of the payment and use of the cost of the child support, and it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff and the defendant had a mutual hostile appraisal through the joint signature process and did not prepare for receiving the joint custody, and that the establishment of a joint account for the child custody as well as the possibility of continuous use of the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined the method of payment and use of child support as above. In so determining, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the bearing of child support expenses, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this point is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Jung-hwa-hwa

Justices Kim Jong-soo