Busan Address

Busan District Court

Attorney Lee Do-young

Busan Address

Changwon-si in the place of service

Original domicile Changwon-si

The plaintiff is the same as the plaintiff.

Busan District Court

2. The plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and custodian of the principal of the case.

3. The defendant shall not perform any and the interviewing act of the principal of the case.

4. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. Facts of recognition

(1) On January 21, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant placed the instant principal as a legally married couple who reported marriage on January 21, 201.

(2) The Defendant neglected to home while married, and attempted to abuse the principal of the case under the influence of frequent alcohol.

(3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to divorce on January 21, 2015, and on the same day, filed an application for confirmation of divorce with this court.

(4) The Defendant received hospitalized treatment through an abnormal behavior, such as smoking and wraping with the neighbors from May 1, 2015 to August 21, 2015.

[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 17, the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. Determination

According to the above facts, the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant has reached a failure to recover any longer due to the negligence of the defendant's family, etc., which constitutes grounds for divorce by re-market as stipulated in Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code.

2. Designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian, and visitation right;

(a) Designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian;

At present, the principal of this case is raising the plaintiff, and the plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and a custodian of the principal of this case by taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the marital life and failure of the plaintiff and the defendant, and the age

(b) Interview right;

One of the parents who do not actually raise a child has the visitation right for the child, and in general, it is desirable to conduct smooth visitation right for the welfare of the child. However, if it is judged that conducting visitation right infringes on the welfare of the child, it is necessary to limit or exclude it.

Examining the case back to this case, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant had a record of abuse of the principal of this case; (b) was hospitalized by showing abnormal behavior by the Defendant; and (c) the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have interview until the Defendant’s psychological stability; and (d) agreed to regularly interview upon the psychological stability, excluding the Defendant’s visitation rights for the purpose of sound growth and emotional stability of the principal of this case would be consistent with the welfare of the principal of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition as to the designation of a person with parental authority and a person with custody of the principal of the case, and the visitation right claim.