[위자료등][하집1992(2),605]
(a) The case ordering the payment of a certain amount of support allowances every month until a judgment on the claim for divorce or consolation money which is pending as a result of a complaint is rendered in the lawsuit claiming the support fees and other claims filed against the wife
(b) The case which admitted the claim for prohibition of interference with interview to the children of one side of the married couple who is under separate jurisdiction;
Articles 826(1) and 837-2 of the Civil Act
Claimant
Defendant 1 and two others
The principal of the case and one other
1. The respondent shall pay 300,000 won for each month from November 22, 1991 to the Seoul High Court Decision 91Reu2274 Divorce and the claim for consolation money from November 22, 1991.
2. The respondent shall not obstruct the claimant from joining the principal of the case.
3. The claimant's remaining support allowances are dismissed;
4. The trial costs shall be divided into two parts, one for which they are borne by the claimant, and the remainder for which they are borne by the respondent.
5. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.
The respondent shall pay 70,000,000 won to the appellant and the judgment as referred to in paragraph (2) of this Article.
1. Facts on the basis of the instant case
In light of the whole purport of oral proceedings, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8-17, 18-2, and Gap evidence Nos. 3 (a copy of judgment), and Gap evidence Nos. 4 (a copy of judgment) which have no dispute over the establishment of the case, the appellant and the defendant married on December 22, 1983 and gave birth to the principals of the case. Since the appellant and the respondent moved to the church, which are witnesses, there was an independent conflict of opinion between the respondent and the defendant, the respondent were removed from 9.3, the defendant and the defendant did not request for a divorce from 97, the defendant and the defendant were removed from 197, and the defendant did not request for a divorce from 19,000,000 won to 19,000,000 won, and the defendant and the defendant did not request for a divorce from 97,000,000 won to 19,000 won.
2. Determination as to the claimant's claim for support fees
In the case of a couple's living together, they have the duty to support and cooperate with each other, and in the case of a temporary separation or non-living, they have the duty to provide economic support to the other party within the scope of their economic ability. As seen above, the claimant and the respondent are currently living separately, and they cannot be seen as resolving the separate relationship within the short period, and therefore it is reasonable to pay the support fees to the other party who has economicly surplus compared with their economic ability.
Therefore, in light of the whole purport of pleadings, the defendant currently raises income of more than 80,000 won every month when working as the director at Gan Energy Co., Ltd., and some of the revenues are consumed as the case principal's child support and consumed as the remainder for one's own living expenses, while the claimant has been working as a nurse before marriage, there are only one apartment bond (58.21 square meters in Seoul), but the defendant's property is about 100,000 won in the above apartment house (58.21 square meters in size) with the establishment registration of right to lease on a deposit basis, and there is no dispute between the defendant and the defendant's right to lease on a deposit basis, and the facts that it is difficult to expect such disposition between the defendant and the defendant's 200,000 won in the above apartment house from 10,000 won in terms of the above circumstances, it is reasonable for the defendant to pay 10,000 won in accordance with the record of the claim for divorce and 14, etc.
3. Determination on the claim for prohibition of interference with interview to the principal of the case
The claimant has the right to interview the principal of the case freely unless there are special circumstances, such as the mother of the principal of the case presumed to have an adverse influence on the education or fostering of his child, and there is no evidence to deem that the respondent has an adverse influence on the education or fostering of the principal of the case due to the passage of the principal of the case, and that there is a possibility that the respondent would interfere with the interview of the principal of the case, such as sending the principal of the case to Gangnam City, etc., the claimant's claim for the prohibition of interference is reasonable.
4. Conclusion
Thus, the claimant's claim for support fees and the claim for prohibition of interference with interview within the above limit of the claimant's claim shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons, and the remaining claim for support fees shall be dismissed on the ground that there is no reason, and the trial costs shall be borne by the parties, and the judgment shall be made as ordered by attaching a provisional execution
Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)