Chang-si

Law Firm ○, Attorney Lee Dong-young

[Defendant-Appellant]

Seongbuk-gu Seoul ○○

송달장소 서울 성북구 ㅇㅇㅇ

2. The applicant's remaining applications are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in this Court or in Gap evidence 1 through 16 (including each number):

A. On May 18, 200, the respondent and the applicant were the legally married couple who reported the marriage on April 9, 200, and delivered the Park Jong-hun, who is a child. On April 9, 2001, the respondent and the respondent filed a lawsuit claiming divorce, consolation money, child support, etc. with Seoul Family Court 2002Dhap52 (the main lawsuit), 2002Dhap2744 (Counterclaim).

B. After that, at the Seoul Family Court No. 3-2 conciliation committee, the Claimant and the Respondent are divorced between the Claimant and the Respondent on October 22, 2002. ② The Respondent is designated as a person with parental authority and the Respondent who is a child, and ③ the Respondent is paid to the Respondent one million won on the last day of each month from May 31, 2002 to the majority of ○○○○○○. ④ The Respondent withdraws an objection against the above court’s compulsory conciliation decision regarding the claim for the above withdrawal, and the Respondent withdraws from the Seoul District Court Decision No. 2002 money 539 (Gahap767). The Claimant and the Respondent agreed to consent to the withdrawal of the above objection, and they completed the divorce report on November 13, 2002.

C. However, the respondent, who did not pay the child support to the respondent properly, filed an application for provisional seizure of the claim against the applicant as indicated in the separate sheet with Seoul Family Court 2003 business group701 as the preserved right, claiming a total of 40 million won of the child support for 40 months from March 2003 to 40 months, and the above court accepted the claim and decided the provisional seizure of this case as stated in the Disposition No. 1 of April 2, 2003.

D. Meanwhile, on February 21, 2003, the respondent was paid KRW 9 million from the National Health Insurance Corporation on April 9, 2003 according to the decision of Suwon District Court 2003TTTT 650 and the collection order, and on August 11, 2003, according to the decision of Suwon District Court 2003TT 3393 and the collection order, which was issued on May 19, 2004 by each National Health Insurance Corporation.

E. In addition, the Claimant paid the Respondent a total of KRW 6 million on October 31, 2003 and KRW 14 million on 14 occasions from December 1, 2003 to December 31, 2004, respectively.

2. Determination:

A. Therefore, according to the above facts, since the collection following the respondent's decision to order the seizure and collection of claims and the payment of the applicant's child support from March 31, 2003 to May 31, 2005, the total amount of the child support from March 31, 2003 to May 31, 2005, among the preserved rights, was paid 26 million won, and the same part out of the preserved claims has been extinguished (no dispute between the parties concerned). This may be deemed to constitute a case where the reason for the preservative measure is extinguished after the issuance of the preservative measure or where it is not reasonable to maintain the preservative measure due to other changes in other circumstances, it is reasonable to revoke the above part exceeding 14 million won of the claim amount corresponding to the remaining amount of claims (40 million won - 26 million won).

B. Meanwhile, the applicant filed a claim to the effect that the need to compensate for future child support claims has ceased, in light of the fact that the applicant has been working in an O hospital in racing as a doctor, and the applicant has been paying the child support expenses every month from the end of October 2003 to December 31, 2004. In addition, the applicant's occupation has served in an O hospital in racing as a doctor, and the applicant has sufficient capability to pay the child support every month.

On October 31, 2003, after the above conciliation, the applicant collected the unpaid child support of the applicant as compulsory execution by the respondent because the applicant did not pay the child support to the respondent not later than October 31, 2003. ② In addition, the child support bond of this case, which is the right to be preserved, has the due date for every month, but it is ordinary to execute the child support bond of this case at once, rather than the due date for each payment, and it is difficult to recognize that there has yet to be a considerable period from the time the execution is possible until the closing date of the argument in this case. ③ Furthermore, in light of the fact that the applicant has no due date after the above conciliation became final and conclusive and the applicant can file an application for the cancellation of the execution of the remaining part of the provisional seizure decision of this case, it cannot guarantee the performance of the obligation in the future merely because the actual results and the job of the applicant has the intention to do so. Therefore, the above assertion by the applicant is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the applicant's application of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining application is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.