2017 Down 200131 Change of person with parental authority, claim for child support, etc.

A (1985,000)

Busan Address

Busan District Court

Attorney Park Jae-hoon

Attorney Lee In-bok

B. (1982. South and North Korea)

Busan Address

Reference domicile:

A person shall be appointed.

Busan Address

Busan District Court

September 7, 2017

1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

A person with parental authority over the principal of the case shall be changed to the claimant. The other party shall have jurisdiction over the principal of the case.

50 monthly from the day after the delivery of the written appeal for this case to the day before the principal of this case becomes adult.

at the end of each month, the payment shall be made at the end of each month.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

A. The claimant and the other party reported their marriage in March 2010, and the principal of the case was his child.

B. The claimant and the other party filed an application for confirmation of intention of divorce between the two parties in this Court 2016No. 4806.

11.7. A person with parental authority over the principal of this case shall be designated as the claimant and the other party, and the custodian shall be designated as the claimant, and the divorce was made after having confirmed the intention of divorce, including the fact that the claimant bears the child support, and after having reported divorce on the same day.

C. The principal of the case was admitted to an elementary school on March 2017.

E. The other party did not have any particular occupation at the time of the agreement divorce, and at present, at the philosolosophical hall operated by the external ginseng village, the other party is resolving food shares without pay.

2. Judgment on the claim for replacement of a person with parental authority

The claimant asserts that there are many difficulties in dealing with the legal problems of the principal of the case with the consent of the other party. Therefore, the claimant's sole parental authority should be changed for the welfare of the principal of the case.

When designating a person with parental authority over the principal of this case as the other party and dealing with the legal problems concerning the principal of this case, it is anticipated that the consent of the other party should be sought at all times. However, there is no material that the claimant did not contact with the other party or experienced practical difficulties due to the other party's non-operation. In the litigation procedure of this case, the other party receives documents of the lawsuit in ordinary ways and the date of the lawsuit of this case is present at the hearing of this case, there is no evidence to prove that there was an unjust coercion against the other party in designating a person with parental authority over the principal of this case as the claimant jointly with the other party at the time of the divorce, the agreement on the designation of a person with parental authority between the claimant and the other party should be respected unless there is any change in circumstances. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that there was a change in the person with parental authority.

3. Determination as to the claim for change of child support

Although the other party is the father of the principal of the case and is unable to work at the workplace where the payment of benefits is made, it is difficult to recognize that there was a change of circumstances to require the other party to pay the child support, contrary to the contents of the consultation at the time of consultation, in light of the following: (a) the claimant and the other party agreed that the child support of the principal of the case is to be borne by the claimant; (b) there is no change in circumstances after the agreement, there is a need to respect the agreement between the parties at the time of divorce; (c) the claimant was unable to file a request for the adjudication of this case; and (d) the claimant was aware of the fact that the principal of the case was admitted to an elementary school on March 2017; and (d) the claimant was aware of the fact that the principal of the case was admitted to the elementary school on March 2017; and (e) the other party did not have any income at the time of consultation.

4. Conclusion

The motion of this case shall be judged in the same manner as the disposition is without merit.

September 7, 2017

Judges Yoon Jae-han