[2] The case where it is possible to designate all of the parents who have a judicial divorce as a joint custodian of the child

[3] The case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the designation of a child career Gap and Eul and determined the method of joint rearing, in case where the issue was whether to designate them as a child career of Byung who is his child, Eul and Eul

[2] In the case of judicial divorce, the designation of all parents as a joint rearer shall be deemed to be possible only where the parents are prepared to accept the joint rearer, and there is no significant difference in the value of the parenting, the parents live in close place, the environment of the rearing is similar, so that the children do not suffer economic and time loss and there is no problem in environmental adaptation, and the conditions for joint rearer are considered to be met, comprehensively taking into account whether the children have sexual and emotional response ability to accept the situation of joint rearer, etc.

[3] In a case where Party A and Party B, who are their children, are designated as Party B’s children, the case holding that: (a) Party B and Party B continued to request Party B to designate Party B as Party B’s sole person with parental authority and custodian; (b) Party B and Party B’s opinions in the near future; and (c) it seems difficult to expect the mutual cooperation between Party B and Party B; (b) even if Party B and Party B are able to sufficiently consult on necessary matters in the process of joint rearing, this would lead to Party B’s change of residence with Party B through joint rearing, and would significantly contribute to reducing the economic and time losses and emotional instability of Party B’s children; and (c) it would result in achieving most goals through the designation of joint rearer B and Party B through interview with Party B, the court below erred by misapprehending legal principles as to the designation of joint rearer B and Party B, etc.

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

A. Parental rights and duties are parents’ rights and obligations that directly affect the welfare of minor children. Accordingly, when parents divorce a minor child, determination shall be made in the direction that is most helpful and appropriate for the growth and welfare of minor children, by comprehensively taking into account all the elements such as the gender and age of the minor child, the parent’s patriotism and intent to rear the minor child, the existence of economic capacity necessary for fostering, the possibility of harmonization between the father and the mother’s financial capacity necessary for fostering, the contents of the method of fostering, the appropriateness, and the possibility of harmony between the father and the mother’s intent to provide, the relationship between the father and the minor’s child and the minor’s intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Meu380, May 8, 2008; 2013Meu383, 3390, 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., where both parents divorce, the court does not necessarily have to designate a person with parental authority or a person with parental authority when determining a person with parental authority or a person with parental authority when determining the person with parental authority. However, in cases where all of the parents who divorce in a judicial divorce are designated as a joint custodian, determination of whether to allow such divorce should be made with careful consideration of the fact that the parents’ parents’ wrongful acts, abandonment, and unfair treatment are difficult to continue marriage or divorce. In addition, in the case of joint rearing, it is difficult for the parents to periodically move their residence to the place of their parents, and it is likely that the parents would suffer confusion in their values or will not suffer stable livelihood due to their living under two names while bringing up their children (in particular, if the children are accompanying in an educational institution, etc., taking into account that there is a significant difference in their values among the parents’ joint raising and bringing-up into account the environment where they continue to jointly.

B. The court below acknowledged that there is a negative impact on economic and time losses or children when designating a divorced parent as a joint rearer, but determined that it would be 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 a person with parental authority and a joint rearer, so that the principal of the case may grow up in a healthy and balanced manner, by making the Plaintiff feel healthy and maternity sufficiently without being able to any of the persons with parental authority and the joint rearer. Accordingly, the court below decided by the joint rear method that the Plaintiff shall raise the principal of the case from 17:00 to 17:00 on Sundays of every week and from 17:00 on Sundays of every week to 17:00 on every week.

C. However, examining the facts established by the court below in light of the legal principles as seen earlier and the records, the plaintiff and the defendant filed a claim to designate himself as a sole person with parental authority and a custodian, not a joint custody. At present, it seems difficult to expect the plaintiff and the defendant to cooperate with each other with respect to joint custody and the method thereof by coordinating their opinions in the near future. Even if the plaintiff and the defendant are able to consult sufficiently about necessary matters in the process of joint custody of the principal of this case as intended by the court below, this would lead to the determination of each parent's custody through joint custody, and would be subject to the determination of each parent's domicile, and would not significantly contribute to reducing economic and time losses and emotional instability of the principal of this case to be placed in a different physical environment. Rather, even through one person's designation as a custodian and the contact with the other party, it seems that the purpose of the court below is to achieve most of its goals through joint custody.

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

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal on the opening of the joint account of the Plaintiff and the Defendant

The court below held that with respect to the child support to be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant as a joint custody of the principal of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant shall open a joint deposit account under the joint name of the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff shall deposit the amount of KRW 300,000 per month and KRW 90,000 per month at the last day of each month and use the money deposited in the above account as the child support of the principal

As above, the court below ordered the opening of a joint account in the joint name seems to be a result of considering the purport of joint custody. However, as long as it is difficult to maintain the judgment of the court below as to joint custody, it is necessary to re-examine the part ordering the opening of a joint account in the plaintiff and the defendant joint account for the child support of the principal of the case and determine the method of sharing the child support according to the method of rearing, such as the designation of the custodian for the principal of the case. However, if the court intends to directly order the specific method of the establishment of a joint account, such method is possible and difficult in practice or system

Meanwhile, the judgment of the court below is hard to accept in that the plaintiff and the defendant have a mutual hostile appraisal through the judicial divorce process and are not prepared to accept the joint rearing, and that opening a joint account and using it as child support under the circumstances where no agreement was reached on the method of fostering is likely to cause continuous disputes in relation to the use of child support between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined the method for the payment of child support as above. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the burden of child support, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal assigning

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)