In a case where Gap filed a claim for the appointment of her mother Eul as her parent Eul as her father as her father, and her father as her father due to the death of her father, the case holding that it is reasonable to appoint her guardian as her guardian for the welfare of her, and that it is reasonable to appoint her without delay as her guardian for the sake of her welfare, on the grounds that she has a serious reason for not exercising her parental authority in case of her disease, and that it is reasonable to appoint her as her guardian for the

In a case where Gap filed a claim for the appointment of her mother as her father as her mother as her father as her father as her father with respect to her child Byung upon the death of her father as her father, the case holding that it is reasonable to appoint her guardian as her guardian for the sake of welfare of her minor because, in the case where her grandparents, including her mother, who had been married with her father as her mother as her father, had been appointed as her mother as her father as her father and her father as her father, and she had been appointed as her guardian for the ward and her father for a considerable period of time before her divorce between her and her husband and her, it is not desirable to change her children's her childcare environment that has been formed for a long period of time in terms of the minor's welfare, although she had shown her arrival to her but did not want to change her current her child care situation, and that she had not been appointed as her child care for her child with her.

Articles 909-2(3) and 927-2(1)4 of the Civil Act

Claimant

[Judgment of the court below]

Principal 1 et al.

A petitioner shall be appointed as a guardian for the minor of the principal.

The same shall apply to the order.

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.

(a) Family relationship;

1) The instant principal is a person born between the deceased Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”) and the interested parties.

2) On April 24, 2012, the Deceased reported the divorce with a related person, and on April 24, 2012, the mother as a person with parental authority over the principal of the instant case, and the father as a person with parental authority over the principal of the instant case 2.

3) The Deceased died on April 29, 2014.

B. The situation of fostering the principal of the case

1) The person concerned was the deceased and the person in question, who was living in the case after the death of the principal of the case, and the claimant, who was to leave thereafter, raised the principal of the case.

2) Around 2010, the deceased and his related persons filed a judgment and directly rear the principal of the case, but the principal 2 of the case was sent to the claimant. After that, the conflict occurred between the deceased and their related persons, and they were separated from the deceased from the beginning of 2012. After that, the related persons did not contact or contact with the deceased and the principal of the case, and thereafter, the claimant raises the principal of the case.

3) A related person, who remarriedd with Nonparty 2 on October 22, 2013, completed the marriage report and gave birth to Nonparty 3 on May 13, 2014.

4) The claimant is an apartment security guard who imports approximately KRW 1,300,000 per month and the money of the principal of the case is the full-time owner. The claimant's residence is an apartment building with three rooms of 38 square meters, and the principal of the case is living together with his grandparents, mothers, and third villages. The non-party 4 is working for a child care center, and the non-party 5, a third-party 5, working for a merz fire marine insurance company, has a certain income. The relatives of the principal of the case who are living together with his mother, etc., who are attending an elementary school, report the principal of the case.

5) After the death of the Deceased, the case principal had a large amount of obligation inherited from the Deceased, and had to file an application for social welfare services for the principal of the case attending an elementary school due to the need to waive inheritance, and had the applicant obtain consent from the relevant person and had the applicant suffered difficulties as a custodian, and filed the instant claim.

6) 관계인은 이 사건에서 사건본인들에 대하여 적극적인 양육 의지를 나타내지는 아니하였다. 실제로 가사조사 중 진행된 사건본인들과의 면접교섭에서 관계인은 약 2년 만에 처음 보는 사건본인들을 대면하고도 애틋한 감정을 나타내지는 아니하고 사건본인들의 의사를 존중하겠다는 태도를 보였다.

7) In the course of the visitation, the person concerned and the person concerned 1 had an interest in her mother as he/she had experience in living together with the person concerned for a period of one year and six months, but the person concerned 2, who was the birth, did not express any opinion, and did not express any attachment to the person concerned. Family investigator assessed that the person concerned wishes to live together with his/her grandparents, and the person concerned wishes to live together with his/her grandparents.

8) At the time of a family investigation, the extent of conflict between the claimant and the interested parties was very serious, such as criticism and desireing on one side of the claimant, the applicant’s money, the relationship between the third and the interested parties, and the external money together.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the following circumstances are revealed.

1) The grandparents of the instant principal, including the claimant, brought up the instant principal for a considerable period of time prior to and after the divorce by agreement between the deceased and related persons, and in particular, the instant principal 2 has been brought up by the grandparents continuously after the birth. Although the instant principal is yet to reach an elementary school age and the interested parties are the mother of the instant principal, it is not desirable for the instant principal to change the childcare environment that has been created for a long time in terms of minor welfare.

2) Although the instant principal 1 appears to be a person interested, the current situation of custody does not want to be changed, and the instant principal 2 has a drinking sentiment against the relevant person, and does not have a petial relationship. The relevant person has not been in contact with the principal of the instant case after having divorced with the deceased and has not expressed his/her intention to actively rear the principal of the instant case, and is bringing up 3 other than the claimed Nonparty 2, who has been married with the person other than the claimant 2, and the relevant person is now bringing up his/her own custody of the instant principal as a person with parental authority. It is difficult to see whether two related persons, who are his/her husband, agree to directly rear the principal of the instant case.

In this situation, if a person in parental authority and a custodian for the principal of this case is designated, it is difficult to deem that the rearing environment is fit for the welfare of the principal of this case in light of the limit of the person concerned who must rear the outside 3 of the past claim of the side and the relation with the fraternity.

3) Although the claimant does not raise a large number of imports, the applicant appears to have a situation in which the mother or tri village of the principal of the case with a certain import can provide economic support, and the money of the principal of the case has an opportunity to contact the principal of the case at a time as a full-time supervisor.

4) A petitioner who raises the principal of this case is not a person with parental authority or guardian, and one parent is required to obtain the consent of the interested parties in applying for social welfare services for the purpose of the law, and thus, there is a large number of inconvenience and the conflict between both parties who do not want each time may be caused. In addition, it is an element which adversely affects the welfare of the principal

B. In the case of the principal 2, the deceased who is a sole person with parental authority after the divorce between the deceased and related persons, died and became incapable of having parental authority. Considering the above circumstances, it is reasonable to appoint the claimant as the guardian for the welfare of the principal 2 pursuant to Article 909-2(3) of the Civil Act.

Next, Article 924 of the Civil Act provides for the reason for loss of parental authority as one of the requirements. In light of objective circumstances, where a person with parental authority cannot expect adequate protection and culture of a person with parental authority, for example, in a de facto marital relationship with another male and de facto child who has already died while raising his/her father's awareness after divorce, he/she takes care of the child. Meanwhile, in cases where a sole person with parental authority is unable to exercise parental authority, the court may appoint a guardian pursuant to Article 909-2 (3) of the Civil Act which applies mutatis mutandis under the main sentence of Article 927-2 (1) of the Civil Act. Since the requirement is the same as the case of loss of parental authority, if it is impossible to protect the person with parental authority and expect the person with parental authority to foster his/her child, it is reasonable to interpret that the person with parental authority cannot be seen that there is a conflict between the person with the person with parental authority and the person with parental authority at bar and the person with parental authority at bar.

3. Conclusion

If so, the claimant's claim of this case shall be accepted and judged as per the disposition.

Judges Transferability