2017 Dives 733 Change of Person of Parental Authority and Child Career

A (1978 Students, South 198)

Busan Address

Busan place of service

Reference domicile

(B) B. (1983.00)

Address

Busan Detention Office

Reference domicile

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

C. S. (2013.00 S.)

Busan Address

Reference domicile

June 21, 2017

1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The cost of trial shall be borne by the claimant.

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the records of this case and the purport of the whole examination, the following facts are recognized:

A. On March 25, 2012, the claimant and the other party reported marriage, and the principal of the case was his child.

B. On October 8, 2015, in this case, divorce, etc. filed against the other party by the claimant against the other party, “1. The plaintiff (the claimant of this case) and the defendant (the other party of this case) are divorced. 2.

The defendant is designated as a person with parental authority and custodian of the principal of this case. "A decision to recommend reconciliation was made with the content of this case, and on October 31, 2015, the above decision to recommend reconciliation became final and conclusive.

C. The other party is currently being at the Busan detention center due to fraud.

2. Assertion and determination

The claimant asserts that the other party has committed fraud again during the period of suspension of execution, the amount obtained by fraud exceeds KRW 100 million, and the other party and his family's economic ability are expected to be sentenced to sentence because it is impossible to reach an agreement with the victim because it is impossible for the other party to exercise his/her parental authority and right of custody. Thus, the other party's claim that the other party should be changed to his/her parental authority and custodian as the claimant because it is not possible for the other party to exercise his/her parental authority and right of custody. Although it is recognized that the other party is at the Busan detention house due to fraud, the other party is recognized as having been able to exercise his/her parental authority and right of custody, but the other party has received assistance from his/her mother and her mother before being confined to the detention house, and the other party raises the principal of the case with his/her mother and her child, and the other party is strongly willing to raise the principal of the case, and thus the other party's welfare and welfare should not be designated as the claimant.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

June 21, 2017

Judges Yoon Jae-han