The claimant shall pay 80,000 won per month to the other party as child support for the principal of the case from April 2018 to the day before the principal of the case reaches the age of majority.

2. The claimant's remaining claims for adjudication are dismissed;

3. The cost of a trial shall be borne by each person.

On December 14, 2009 of the case, the contents of the protocol of self-payment of child support shall be changed as follows. The claimant shall be the applicant:

The child support of the principal of the case from June 1, 2017 to the day before the principal of the case reaches the majority.

The 500,000 won per month shall be paid on the last day of each month, and the previous child support shall be exempted.

In full view of the records and the overall purport of the examination of the case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. On March 19, 2001, the claimant and the other party reported their marriage, and among them, the case principal was placed as a child.

B. On December 14, 2009, the claimant and the other party filed a divorce with Busan District Court Family Branch No. 2009No. 6940, and on December 14, 2009, the above court designated the person with parental authority and the person with custody of the principal of the case as the opposing party. The claimant paid 1.5 million won per month to the other party as the child support of the principal of the case, and the child support payment protocol (hereinafter referred to as the "child support statement of this case").

C. On the other hand, the claimant and the other party agreed to pay KRW 1 million per month to the child support of the principal of the case, unlike the child support charge of this case, in the month where the situation of the claimant's store is not good around that time.

D. On May 22, 2013, the other party filed an application with the Busan Family Court for an order to perform the obligation to pay the child support under the Busan Family Court Ordinance No. 2013 business206, which was the minimum child support (one million won per month) that the claimant promises to pay in extenuating circumstances. On June 26, 2013, the claimant filed an application for an order to perform the obligation to pay the child support under the Busan Family Court Ordinance No. 2010,000,000 won for the child support delayed to the claimant (the above application was dismissed due to the failure to rectify the order of correction after its correction).

E. As the claimant did not pay the child support again from December 2, 2016, the other party filed an application with the Busan Family Court for the implementation order under 2017 businessz85 against the claimant on February 28, 2017. The claimant filed a claim against the other party for the reduction of the child support of this case on June 5, 2017.

F. On June 14, 2017, the claimant was ordered to pay in installments the amount of KRW 10 million out of the unpaid child support from the above court, but did not comply with such order. The other party did not comply with the order. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 28210, Sep. 8, 2017>

The Busan Family Court applied for detention of the claimant's breach of duty under the Busan Family Court 2017 Mad101, and is currently in trial.

G. Meanwhile, on December 21, 2009, the claimant opened and operated a mobile phone store in Busan District on or before January 21, 2018 (the mobile phone sales store in the same place is still operating in the same place). According to the Busan District Tax Office's tax information reply, the sales amount of KRW 83,548,00 in the year 2012, and KRW 367,00 in the year 51, 2013, KRW 367,00 in the year 233,486,00 in the year 2014, KRW 324,318,00 in the year 2015, KRW 282,535,00 in the name of the claimant and the sales amount of KRW 233,486,00 in the name of the claimant were included in the sales amount of KRW 20 in the sales amount of KRW 282,535,00 in the year 2016).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

The claimant, at the time of the divorce, ordered the other party to divide the difference between the sales of the apartment that had common property of the couple and most of the other party property, such as passenger cars, installment savings, and insurance, under the premise that the other party raises the principal of the case, and the details of the child support payment protocol of this case were stated in the form without any particular examination. The sales of the mobile phone sales store are difficult to reduce rapidly after 2016, and it was difficult to pay the store tax and monthly rent or shortage due to the rapid decrease of the sales of the mobile phone sales store, and the closure of the business around January 1, 2018, the claimant sought to exempt the past child support before June 1, 2017 from the contents of the child support payment protocol of this case, and thereafter reduce the child support to KRW 500,000 per month.

B. Determination

1) Part of claim for exemption from past child support

In other words, the following circumstances recognized by the overall purport of the examination, records, and interrogation, i.e., the agreement on the division of property claimed by the claimant, has no supporting evidence to acknowledge it (2018).

2. According to the letter of the Financial Transaction Information Society of the Jina bank, there is no installment savings in the name of the principal of the case, and the other party.

In light of the fact that the deposit in the name of the claimant is merely small amount of 00 won and that it was sent to 100,000 won to the claimant on December 31, 209 immediately after the lapse of 200 days, and that the difference in the sale of the above apartment was used to adjust the debts and taxes incurred while running the business under the name of the other party, the other party's claim that it is more reasonable that the other party's claim for the payment of the child support was made in the name of the other party's 2-year period of sale of the above apartment ( December 22, 2009) and the date of opening the business under the name of the claimant ( December 21, 2009), and that the other party's claim that it was difficult for the claimant to pay the child support under the name of the other party's 2-year period of sale after the lapse of 2016 and the other party's claim that it is still difficult for the claimant to pay the child support under the same name of the claimant.

3. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the court shall judge as ordered.

April 16, 2018