2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the debtor;

A claim entered in the attachment bond list shall be seized against a debtor's income tax withholding agent.

No person liable to collect income tax may pay for any above-mentioned claims to the debtor.

No person shall dispose of or receive the above bonds. The income tax withholding agent shall make the last day of each month.

In the above bonds, the amount equivalent to the child support stated in the attached claim list shall be paid to the creditor.

2. Purport of appeal;

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The creditor's motion shall be dismissed.

A. The obligee and the obligor were legally married couple who completed the marriage report on January 6, 2001, and have a minor child himself/herself (on January 15, 2002).

B. The creditor and the debtor filed a lawsuit seeking a divorce, etc. in court proceedings with the Ulsan District Court 2010ddan2435 (principal lawsuit) and 2010ddan3810 (Counterclaim). The above court rendered a judgment on February 22, 2011 that "the creditor and the debtor shall be divorced. The creditor shall be designated as the person with parental authority and the custodian of the case. The debtor shall pay to the creditor 400,000 won each month as the child support for the principal of the case from February 23, 2011 to January 14, 2022. The debtor appealed against the above judgment, but the designation of the person with parental authority and the custodian, the debtor's appeal for the child support was dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 3, 2012.

C. On November 11, 2019, an obligee filed an application for an order to directly pay the instant child support on the ground that “the obligor failed to pay the child support from July 2019 to pay the child support not less than twice without justifiable grounds.”

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Although an obligor has endeavored to pay the child support, since since 2019, the obligor's economic situation became too difficult due to the obligor's excessive difficulty, it is expected that the child support should be reduced according to the schedule of entrance around April 2020, and it is necessary to reduce the future child support. Therefore, the decision of the first instance court is unreasonable.

3. The requirement that an obligor for child support who is obligated to regularly pay the child support should not pay the child support more than twice without good cause in order to issue an order for direct payment of the child support (see Article 63-2(1) of the Family Litigation Act). In addition, the reason for an immediate appeal against an order for direct payment of the child support concerns the defects of matters to be investigated and observed by a court when issuing an order for direct payment of the child support, i.e., reasons for the inherent invalidity or cancellation of the order for direct payment of the child support, such as seizure competition, etc.

B. We examine the following circumstances: (a) the obligor’s assertion and the materials submitted by the obligor alone cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds for failing to pay the child support; (b) the obligor’s inherent invalidity or grounds for revocation of a direct payment order of the child support cannot be deemed to exist in the first instance court’s decision; and (c) the obligor’s demand for reduction of the child support through a non-contentious family case of a separate judgment for change of the child support, etc., regardless of the obligor’s demand for reduction of the child support through a non-contentious family case of a separate judgment for

Therefore, the debtor's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the first instance court is just, and the debtor's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

May 1, 2020

Judges Lee Dong-ho

Judges Na Jae-young