[자의성과본의변경허가] 확정[각공2015하,741]
In a case where Party A and Party B designated Party A as the person in parental authority and parentinger of their children in the divorce conciliation, and Party B paid child support to Party B and agreed to have visitation rights twice a month, and Party A sought a judgment seeking permission to change Party A’s surname and origin to Party A’s performance, the case holding that it is inappropriate to change the child’s surname and origin, on the grounds that the change to Party A’s mother’s surname and origin is likely to have a negative impact on visitation rights or payment of child support, and this may result in a violation of the child’s welfare, and thus, it is inappropriate for Party A to change the child’s surname and origin.
In a case where Gap and Eul designated the parent as the person in parental authority and the career of their children in the divorce conciliation, and the father paid the child support to Eul and agreed to have the visitation right twice a month, and Gap sought a judgment to permit Gap to change the child's surname and origin to Gap's performance, the case holding that it is not reasonable to change the child's performance on the grounds that Eul's regular payment of the child support after divorce and regular visitation rights are assessed to have considerable friendly and petness as his father in relation to the child, and that Gap's ground for changing the surname and origin seems to have a negative assessment of Eul still remains rather than for their children, on the grounds that the change to the mother's surname and origin is likely to have an adverse impact on the visitation right or the payment of the child support between Eul and his children, which may be contrary to the welfare of their children, and thus it is inappropriate to change the child's performance.
Article 781(6) of the Civil Act
Claimant
Persons concerned;
Principal 1 et al.
The appeal of this case is dismissed.
It is permitted to change the nature of the principal of this case to the Gimhae "Glag", and to the Gimhae "Glag".
1. Facts of recognition;
The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the contents of the investigation report on the record of this case and the family affairs investigator's preparation and the purport of the whole examination.
A. On October 28, 2011, the claimant and the person concerned have completed the marriage report and had the principal of the case under the supervision of the principal of the case. On October 31, 2014, the person concerned filed a principal lawsuit against the claimant, including divorce (No. 2014da10434). On December 16, 2014, the claimant filed a counterclaim, such as divorce and consolation money (No. 2014da1055) with the Jeju District Court (No. 2014da10595), and on February 11, 2015, a divorce mediation was established.
B. At the time of the divorce conciliation, when designating the person with parental authority and the guardian for the principal of the case, the person concerned paid 300,000 won per person’s child support to the principal of the case and decided to interview the principal of the case two times a month.
C. The principal of the case is 16:30 in a day-to-day childcare center and 16:30 in a day-to-day childcare center, and the principal of the case 2 is still attending a day-to-day childcare center with his age from 09:30 to 13:00.
The claimant is raising about 700,000 won monthly income while working as the door-to-door seller for cosmetics, and raises the principal of the case at the friendship house, and is receiving the assistance of parents in relation to the rearing.
The parties concerned are regularly paying the child support of the principals of the case in accordance with the above divorce mediation and the visitation right is being done without a big problem.
(d) A family investigator, through an investigation report, has a sufficient interest as a parent in both the claimant and the persons concerned as well as the principal of the case, and reported that both the claimant and the persons concerned have been formed.
E. On August 4, 2015, the claimant and the person concerned participated in parent rearing guidance for minor children conducted by this court.
F. In the event of pregnancy of the principal 2 of this case, the claimant unilaterally filed a divorce lawsuit and brought the divorce to the interested parties, and shows the negative appraisal of the interested parties.
2. Determination
A. The claimant's assertion
The principal of the case is not living together with the related person after the divorce of the claimant and the related person, and the visitation right with the related person is made more than two times per month, and it is meaningful that the principal of the case continues to follow the results and origin of the related person.
In particular, if the principal of the case becomes aware that the sex of the claimant is different from that of the principal of the case as he is attending the child care center, it is highly likely to suffer mental confusion and it is expected that the principal of the case will face difficulties in future school life and social life.
Therefore, for the welfare of the principals of this case, it is necessary to change the performance and origin into the performance and origin of the claimant.
B. Determination
In order to justify the change of the present case's present performance and origin, it is clear that such change will be more helpful to the sound growth and welfare of the case principal than to maintain the present performance and origin.
However, in relation to the fostering of the principal of this case, it is difficult to see that the change of the principal of this case's performance into the principal of this case's welfare is more helpful to the welfare of the principal of this case, in light of the following: (a) the related person is regularly paying the child support after divorce and regularly conducting visitation rights with the principal of this case, and the interested person is assessed as having a considerable friendship and attachment as his father for the principal of this case; (b) the emotional friendliness is maintained between the principal of this case and the related person formed through regular visitation rights; and (c) the reason why the claimant intends to change the principal of the case's performance into the principal of this case's performance, rather than for the principal of this case.
Rather, if the mother of the principal’s performance and origin are changed to that of the claimant, it may have a relatively limited impact on visitation negotiations or payment of child support between the related parties and the principal of the case. This may result in a violation of the welfare of the principal of the case.
Therefore, in full view of the above circumstances, it is inappropriate to change the petitioner’s performance and origin to that of the petitioner.
3. Conclusion
Thus, the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Transferability