2019 Doz. 201264 (In this case), visitation rights

2019 Down-gu 201528 (Re-trial), change, etc. of a person raising children

A

C

September 28, 2020

1. The other party (arbitr) may visitation the principal of the case as follows:

(a) schedule;

1) From January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022: The other party (appellant) may make a telephone call or video call with the principal of the case within 10 to 20 minutes from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 202. The other party (appellant) shall be two months each month. Fourth, from weekly Sundays 20:0 to 21:00, a telephone call with the principal of the case may be extended as requested by the principal of the case.

2) From January 1, 2023 to December 31, 2024: To conduct the visitation right every second month; to April 12:0 to 15:00 of weekly Sundays 12:00 to 15:00; the above visitation time is as desired by the principal of the case.

may be extended.

3) From January 1, 2025 to the date when the principal of the case becomes adult: Second, each month, and fourth Sundays, visitation rights shall be held, and specific time shall be determined in consultation with the principal of the case, and accommodation visitation rights may be conducted if the principal of the case consents.

B. Place and method of delivery: In the case of paragraphs (2) and (3) above, the other party (appellant) shall freely communicate the principal of the case to the residence of the principal of the case and then move the principal of the case to the said residence after freely visiting the case at a place where the other party (appellant) may be responsible. Change of visitation right: Interview should proceed with the welfare of the principal of the case as the top priority, and if it is necessary to change the schedule due to inevitable circumstances, the parties may contact one another at least three days before changing it under consultation.

(d) Obligations of the parties: Claimants and their families shall fully cooperate with the above visitation, and neither the other party nor the other party shall defame the principal of the case.

2. An appeal filed by the other party for a counter-appeal shall be dismissed;

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

In this trial: The other party (hereinafter referred to as the "other party") shall not contact the principal of the case until the principal of the case requests the visitation right.

In anti-trials: Change of the person in parental authority and the person in parental authority of the principal of the case to the other party. The claimant (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant") shall deliver the principal of the case to the other party. The claimant shall pay 300,000 won a month as of March 1, 2029 to the other party as child support of the principal of the case.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

In other words, the claimant and the other party have reported their marriage in 2009 and had the principal in this case under the chain of the case. However, at the same time as a judicial conciliation on February 2014, the applicant shall be the person with parental authority and the custodian of the principal in this case, and the other party shall each be the principal in this case and each month, and the other party shall agree to have the interview right from 10:0 on the fourth day of the week to 18:00 on the next day [the Busan Family Court 2012ddan34029 (main claim), 2013ddan2371 (Counterclaim)]. Since then, the interview right between the other party and the principal in this case was continued, but the principal in this case did not reach the interview right from September 2019 to that date.

2. Judgment on the other party’s counterclaim

In order to determine the person with parental authority and the person with custody of the principal of this case, the other party's counter-trial claim will be examined. The other party's re-born and lives in the place of destination, and the situation of fostering the principal of this case is unstable due to the parent-child relationship of the claimant who cares for the principal of this case in Busan, and the other party's family members are trying to terminate the relationship between the principal of this case and the other party by taking an examination against the principal of this case, and the claimant's family members are inappropriate as the person with parental authority and the person with

The following circumstances, i.e., ① the mother of the petitioner and the other party have been raised for a long time from August 2012, 201, before the petitioner and the other party are divorced. The principal of the case is satisfied with the present situation of raising the principal of the case, such as school life, friendship, parenting, living environment, etc., ② the petitioner is not living with the principal of the case, such as going through the place of work and re-born with the other party, but the petitioner has no contact with the principal of the case every day and left the principal of the case, such as visiting the principal of the case, leaving the principal of the case in Busan, at the end of each week, and leaving the principal of the case away from the principal of the case's workplace or a new spouse, ③ the other party has difficulty with the principal of the case, but the other party does not have any understanding of the other party's welfare or to maintain the other party's opinion on the principal of the case, and the other party's opinion is not respected due to the interview of the principal of the case.

Therefore, the other party's claim for change of person with parental authority and custodian is without merit, and further, there is no reason for the delivery of infant and the claim for child support.

3. Judgment as to the claimant's request for main adjudication

The claimant asserts that the other party did not properly look at the principal of the case when the interview is conducted with the principal of the case, and that the other party did not take into account the intention of the principal of the case, and that the principal of the case would refuse the interview with the other party by conducting the interview without considering the other party's wishes, and therefore, it is necessary to exclude the interview right of the principal of the case.

In principle, one parent who does not directly raise his/her child has the visitation right with his/her child, but the visitation right may be excluded or restricted if it is determined that the visitation right infringes on the welfare of the child.

In the case of this case, the principal of this case does not want to have a strong and strong interview with the other party, and as such, the negative appraisal against the other party of the claimant's family has partially affected the other party's refusal of visitation, but rather it is determined that the other party does not respect the principal of this case in the course of visitation, or disregards the intention of the principal of this case. The other party is against the past person's behavior or words in the face, but still does not seem to have a attitude necessary for solving fundamental problems, such as the other party's belief that the cause of refusal of visitation would change if the principal of this case changes the rearer only due to the reason of the claimant's refusal of visitation, which is contrary to the intention of the principal of this case. In particular, if the principal of this case continues visitation right in the same form as that of the previous one, it is highly likely that the other party's reflection of the principal of this case will increase further, and in particular, it is expected that the principal of this case still has no negative influence on the principal of this case.

Therefore, in order to promote the psychological stability of the principal of the case, temporary visitation rights are limited to the schedule and method of temporary visitation rights rather than the resumption of immediate visitation rights, but when the principal of the case grow more and the other party has increased the understanding of the principal of the case through a progressive effort, the other party shall proceed with visitation rights in a general form. The contents of visitation rights between the other party and the principal of the case as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article shall be determined.

4. Conclusion

If so, the other party's claim for a trial against the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiff's claim for a trial against the plaintiff shall be judged as above. It is so decided as per Disposition by the court below.

Judges Don-Support