The case holding that in case where Gap's mother-child claims loss of parental authority against Eul in order to waive Eul's parental authority on the ground that the Civil Act, etc. provides that Gap's parent-child shall waive Eul's parental authority and right of custody in case where Eul's parent-child claims loss of parental authority against Eul in order to give up Eul's parental authority, it is difficult to view that there is a cause of loss of parental authority as provided in the Civil Act, etc.

A was designated as a person with parental authority of B while an agreement was reached in the course of performing the inspection of the Korea Buddhist Cho Jae-in as the performer of the inspection of the Korea Buddhist Cho Jae-sung, and there is a minor child in the qualifications for the registration of the born family of the Korea Buddhist Cho Jae-sung, and the parent of A must waive parental authority and the right to care.

The case holding that the loss of parental authority, which can be at issue to Gap, is "whether it is likely to abuse parental authority to harm the welfare of children" under the Civil Act, and it refers to objectively predicted concerns in light of the offender's past behavior or current tendency, etc., and it cannot be deemed that there is such concern because the offender expressed a subjective intention not to exercise parental authority in the future. In the case of Gap, even before the divorce, it is difficult to see that the situation where the person is living under the parental authority is not able to exercise parental authority, and it is difficult to see that the situation where the person is living under the parental authority is not able to exercise parental authority, and it is difficult to see that there is an objective risk of abuse of parental authority to Gap, considering that it is difficult to say that there is a cause of loss of parental authority under the Civil Act, etc.

Articles 924(1) and 924-2 of the Civil Act; Article 18(1) of the Child Welfare Act

Claimant

Other than 1 et al.

Principal of the case

1. The claimant shall dismiss any claim against other party 2;

2. The claimant's claim against other party 1 is dismissed.

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

The other party shall lose his/her parental authority over the principal of the case. The other party shall lose his/her right to represent and manage the principal of the case.

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the overall purport of the record and examination of this case, the following facts are recognized.

A. The claimant is the mother of the other party 1, who is on his leave of absence, and the other party 1 is performing from December 25, 2017 to the Korean Buddhist Cho Jong-sung ○○.

B. After completing the marriage report on May 26, 2006, the other party had the principal of the case as his child, but completed the divorce report on March 7, 2018.

C. At the time of the divorce between the parties, the parties agreed to designate the person with parental authority of the principal of the case as the other party. At the same time, the report of divorce was completed and the designation of the person with parental authority was effective.

D. The Korea Buddhist Cho Jae-sung provides that one of the qualifications for registration of a runaway shall be “where a minor has a child, he/she shall waive the parental authority (right of custody) by a court ruling until the date of entrance of the taking-over education.” The aforementioned “pass-up education” cannot be made where “in the event of a student’s child, a student is not subject to compulsory education conducted by the Korean Buddhist Cho Jae-sung education Center, which is subject to the taking-over education for a person who is subject to the taking-over of private and

2. Determination as to the part of the claim against other party 2 (ex officio)

The adjudication on the adjudication on the declaration of the loss of parental authority under Article 924 of the Civil Act shall be filed with the person with parental authority as the other party (see Article 101(1) of the Family Litigation Rules). As seen earlier, the other party has designated one other party as the person with parental authority of the principal of the case. Thus, the part of the claim against the other party 2 is illegal against the person without standing as the other party.

3. Determination on the part of the claim against other party 1

A. The gist of the claimant's assertion

After the divorce, the other party 1 went to ○○○○ in order to become a man of the ancestor, while coming to conflict with the other party 1 through a meeting for mental protection and life after the divorce. However, the right of parental authority and right of care should be waived in the case of a man-child registration of the steering species. Thus, the claim of this case was brought to waive the registration.

B. Determination

(1) A dual nature of parental authority

The parental authority is the right and duty imposed upon the parents for the realization of the child’s welfare. Therefore, the parents cannot waive their parental authority and have the duty to exercise their parental authority so as to fit the child’s welfare. If the parents are likely to harm or impair the child’s welfare by violating this, the State must intervene in the exercise of parental authority and take necessary measures. Among them, the adjudication of the loss of parental authority and the restriction on parental authority is the adjudication of the loss of parental authority. Among them, the adjudication of the loss of parental authority deprived of parental authority from the parents is the most strong degree of involvement of the State in the exercise of parental authority, and thus, it should be carefully considered whether it is best for

(2) Relevant provisions

The Civil Act provides that “where the father or the mother has abused his/her parental authority to seriously harm or threaten to harm the welfare of the child” (Article 924) or “where it is difficult or inappropriate for the person with parental authority to exercise his/her parental authority over specific matters, such as designation of his/her place of residence, disciplinary action, or other decision on personal affairs, and thus, harm or threaten to harm the welfare of the child” (Article 924-2). Furthermore, the Child Welfare Act provides that not only the abuse of parental authority, but also significant misconduct, child abuse, or other serious causes for which the exercise of parental authority is impossible (Article 18(1) and the claim for loss of parental authority under the Child Welfare Act is filed by the Mayor/Do Governor, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, or the prosecutor, so consideration shall be given to the extent it supplements the provisions of the above Civil Act).

(3) Existence of cause for loss of parental authority

The assertion that the other party 1 has caused the claim of this case in order to waive parental authority and to allow him to take over education through this, is without merit in itself, in light of the dual nature of parental authority as seen earlier. The decision is made on the ground that the parental authority has proved the cause for the loss of parental authority.

Even based on the claimant's assertion itself, it is difficult to view that there exist grounds for the loss of parental authority or the limitation of loss of parental authority under the Civil Act, such as abuse of parental authority, difficulty in exercising parental authority, and significant misconduct. Meanwhile, it is difficult to view that the act of Nonparty 1 entering ○○○○○○ with the principal of the case, by leaving the principal of the case to the applicant, may constitute "child abuse" as prescribed by the Child Welfare Act, but it is difficult to view that the act constitutes child abuse to the extent of loss of parental authority, in that Nonparty 1 left the principal of the case and left

Ultimately, the reason for the loss of parental authority, which may be an issue to the other party 1, is “whether it is likely to abuse parental authority to harm the welfare of the child” as prescribed by the Civil Act. In light of the past behavior or current tendency of the actor, etc. of the said provision, the term “component” refers to objectively predicted concerns in light of the above provision, and it cannot be said that there is such concern on the ground that he/she expressed a subjective intention not to exercise parental authority in the future. If such subjective circumstance is deemed as a cause for the loss of parental authority, the waiver of parental authority may be practically possible.

In the case of the other party 1, although he entered the ○○○○○○ before his divorce, it is difficult to view that his performance life is a serious cause for not being able to exercise parental authority (or can be seen as a cause for reducing the risk of abuse of parental authority). As seen earlier, it is difficult to conclude that the other party 1 has an objective risk of abuse of parental authority over the other party 1, since he was designated as the parental authority and the guardian of the principal of the case through consultation during his performance life (the other party 1 bears the burden of rearing expenses), and there are circumstances where the other party 1 assists in rearing as his mother’s assistant. Even if there are some concerns about domestic affairs, there is no evidence to support that such concern is more serious than the loss of parental authority, this conclusion is just the same.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the claimant's assertion is without merit, and it is difficult to see that there is a cause of loss of parental authority prescribed by the Civil Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part on the other party 2 in the petition for adjudication of this case is unlawful, and the part on the other party 1 is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-tae