Law Firm White, Attorney Kim Sun-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Seo-young et al., Counsel for the defendant

2. KimB (00717- - 3***)

The same as the applicant for registration and address of the principal of the case;

2. The person with parental authority and the custodian for the principal of the case shall be replaced by the petitioner.

3. From July 23, 201 to July 4, 2017, the other party shall pay 200,000 won per month to the applicant for the child support of the principal of the case, and 1,00,000 won per month from July 5, 201 to July 16, 2020.

4. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

The other party shall pay the applicant fees for future rearing of the principal of the case from January 12, 2010 to July 4, 2017.

A. 3 million won per month, and 2 million won per month from the next day to July 16, 2020 shall be added to the last day of each month.

D. D. D. D.

According to the records, the following facts are recognized.

A. On February 10, 1995, the claimant and the other party reported the marriage, and reported the divorce on January 12, 2006, even though they had the principal of the case as his child.

B. On January 11, 2006, the claimant and the other party drafted a written agreement on the premise of divorce and divorce, and if the important part of the original text is transferred as it is, it is as follows:

10 The parental authority and the right of custody of the principals of this case shall be the other party: Provided, That for four years from the date of agreement, the petition shall have the right of custody for the principals of this case

This other party shall pay the applicant for educational expenses, child support, and living expenses of three million won by no later than the 25th day of each month while the applicant raises the principal of the case: Provided, That if any unexpected special expenses occur, the other party shall pay the applicant additionally. The claimant shall present the next receipt to the other party.

○ The other party shall transfer without delay to the claimant so that the claimant can rear the principal of the case upon the completion of the custody period of the above 4 years. Upon the expiration of the custody period, the payment of educational expenses, child support, and living expenses of the claimant shall be terminated, and the other party may not claim for the expenses incurred by not delivering the child despite the expiration of the custody period.

0 The current deposit office shall be disposed of at the same time as the expiration of the custody period, and the applicant and the other party shall receive 50 million won, respectively.

Since the principal of ○ case still takes leave, the other party wants to do his best to the principal of the case and make his best to the principal of the case without changing his position, at the time of his leave.

While the other party raises the principal of the instant case, the other party does not have another woman other than the body that has produced the principal of the instant case, and the other party does not resume the principal of the instant case. In addition, the claimant shall not resume the principal of the instant case while raising the principal of the instant case.

When the claimant raises the principal of the case, it is concluded that the petitioner requests the other party to assist in the case and hearing the opinion of the principal of the case to the maximum extent possible if the situation that seriously impedes mental, psychological anxiety, early assistance, etc. or academic studies continues due to the sudden changes in the victim's body.

○ If the claimant wishes to report the principal of the case or the principal of the case wishes to report the case, they may see each other at any time.

○ After the expiration of the period of fostering the applicant, the applicant shall live together with the other party, and shall not have his/her family, such as money, etc., take care of.

C. On January 12, 2006, the claimant and the other party are to lend 140 million won to the other party on January 12, 2006, but the other party loans 140 million won to the other party on January 12, 2006.

By the end, a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement was prepared to pay in installments the amount of KRW 3 million per month.

D. From January 2006 to July 2009, the other party paid the provisional amount of KRW 2.5 million to KRW 3 million per month to the applicant for the above child support, etc. In addition, the other party paid the so-called "additional Expenses" several times. However, when the other party did not pay the child support, etc. for August 2009 to the applicant at any time and paid only KRW 530,000 on September 1, 2009, the claimant filed a seizure and collection order on the other party's wage claim with the Seoul Western District Court on September 11, 2009.

E. On November 19, 2009, in preparation for the expiration of the child care period stipulated in the above consultation, the claimant filed a claim of this case seeking to change the person with parental authority and the person with custody over the principal of this case to the claimant, and on the premise of this, to pay the future child care expenses for the principal of this case.

F. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on January 13, 2010, the claimant and the other party agreed to the effect that "the claimant shall designate the claimant as the temporary custodian of the principal of this case until the confirmation of this case" in the application case of preliminary disposition No. 2009 business period000, and the other party shall pay 2 million won each month from the end of January 2010 to the confirmation of this case, and the claimant shall immediately cancel the execution of the seizure and collection order (at the same time, the claimant withdrawn the above application for preliminary disposition).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The claimant's assertion 1)

In light of the fact that the other party shows the form of father who will make every effort to the principal of the case at the time of leave without finding or changing, and that it was a prerequisite for the other party to rear the principal of the case even when the principal of the case is brought up, the other party violated the above premise condition even though it was a prerequisite for the other party to rear the principal of the case in the future, and the principal of the case including "A who was a serious hindrance to the security of the applicant" violated the above premise condition, and the principal of the case, including "A, who was a serious obstacle to the security of the applicant, is able to live well with the applicant, and the principal of the case wishes to live together with the applicant, the applicant must rear the principal of the case as of the present condition for the smooth growth and welfare of the principal of the case.

2) The other party's assertion

The claimant and the other party shall designate the other party as the person in parental authority and the person in parental authority of the principal of the case in the course of divorce. However, only for four years, the claimant raised the principal of the case and the other party agreed to pay the child support, etc. of the principal of the case to the claimant

Despite the continued payment of child support, etc., the claimant, after the divorce, has prevented contact with the principal of the case after the lapse of the period of custody, has made the above agreement and requested the change of the person in parental authority and the custodian of the principal of the case. This claim is against Articles 837(1) and 837(2) of the Civil Act. In addition, it is merely an economic reason that the claimant is filing the claim of this case for the sake of the welfare of the principal of this case, and the change of the person in parental authority and the custodian should not be recognized without any basis even without the need for the welfare of the principal of this case.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the claim for change of person with parental authority and custodian

In principle, where the parents divorce, matters concerning fostering, such as the decision of the custodian, etc., are to be determined by an agreement. However, where the agreement is contrary to the welfare of the child, the Family Court may order correction or ex officio, take into consideration the intention, age, the financial status of the parents, and other circumstances of the child, and determine matters necessary for fostering, and if deemed necessary for the welfare of the child, it may change matters concerning fostering or take other appropriate measures (see Article 837(1) through (5) of the Civil Act) upon the request of the father, mother, children, and prosecutor or ex officio, and the matters concerning fostering shall be determined by taking into consideration the welfare of the child, rather than the consultation of the parents

From the above point of view, it is clear that the above recognition facts and records are as follows. ① The principal of the case wishes to live together with the applicant who is a child care environment at present, while the other party appears to have a strong difficulty in living with the applicant. ② The principal of the case seems to have no particular problem in living at home and in school because the applicant of the case is under custody of the applicant. ③ In particular, since the intelligence index is about 86 and the sociality is too low, it seems to have a low level of boundary, it is clear that the above recognition facts and records need to be examined, and it is reasonable to have the applicant take care of the child care as of the present situation, ④ It seems that the other party of the case is more likely to have been designated as the applicant for child care than the other party to the case, ④ It is more likely that the other party to the case would have been able to smoothly contact with the telephone communications, negotiations, etc. with the principal of the case, but it is more likely that the other party to the case would not have any economic inconvenience than the other party to the case.

As long as a person with parental authority and a custodian of the principal of this case are designated as the claimant, the other party is obligated to share the child support with the claimant and the father of the principal of this case. In particular, the above facts of recognition and the education expenses of the principal of this case seems to require special education, etc. In light of various circumstances such as the fact that the principal of this case continued to pay the child support of the principal of this case, the other party's economic ability of the claimant and the other party, and the past and present situation of the principal of this case, it is reasonable to determine that the amount of the child support to be paid by the other party is KRW 1,00,000 per each principal of this case, and to pay the child support from July 23, 2011 to the last day of each month from July 23, 2011. Accordingly, the other party is obligated to pay the applicant's child support of the principal of this case to the last day of each month from July 23, 2011 to the day when the principal of this case reached each age.

3. Conclusion

If so, the person with parental authority and the custodian of the case shall be replaced to the claimant, and the child support shall be determined as above, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion, so it is unfair to accept the appeal of the claimant, and it is decided as per the disposition of the court of first instance.

Justices Lee fixed-term

Dr. Symbling Symbling Ma