Whether there is a special circumstance to change the agreement on fostering.

At the time of divorce between the respondent and the respondent who was the husband, the respondent has been bringing up one year of age and three years of age according to the agreement with the appellee. Moreover, if the respondent remarrieds with another woman and gives birth to one South, there is no special circumstance to change the custodian under the above agreement to the respondent.

Article 837(2) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Meu29 delivered on February 14, 1978

Kim Young-young

Tyms

1. He/she shall designate a person who is born between the claimant and the appellee (the date of birth omitted) as a person fostering a child born between the claimant and the appellee;

2. The respondent shall pay 150,000 won to the claimant each month from July 1983 to the date of full age.

3. The claimant shall dismiss the remainder of claims.

4. The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent.

5. The above paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay 20,000 won each month to the claimant from July 1983 to the date of full completion.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent and the pronouncement of a provisional execution.

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence 1-1, 2 (each certified copy of family register), Gap evidence 2 (date of birth), witness's testimony and testimony, which are public documents, Gap evidence 3 (a written agreement, this means that this is due to the defendant's old-age, experience, or matters violating good morals and other social order, or that the defendant's testimony and arguments are null and void. However, it is not accepted as it does not contain any evidence to support the above facts) and the whole purport of testimony and arguments of the above witness, the claimant and the defendant came to know of the above facts on May 10, 1978 and completed the marriage report on February 21, 1979. The defendant's child support applicant and the defendant's defendant's 1-2 (date of birth omitted), who have been given birth to the above defendant's child support within the extent of 1-6 percent of the above amount of 10 children support and then the defendant's 1-3 children support applicant and the defendant's 1-1-2.

However, at the time of the above divorce, the respondent agreed temporarily to the claimant's assertion that he will take custody of the above claimant at the time of the above divorce, but it appears in Korean situation that it is reasonable for the defendant to take custody of the above claimant for the future of the above claimant, but it is reasonable for the defendant to refuse the defendant's request for custody, despite the reasonable ground to bring the above claimant to custody of the above claimant, so it is reasonable for the claimant to take custody of the above claimant only when he refuses the defendant's request for childcare. Therefore, the claimant has been bringing to custody of the above claimant until now according to the agreement with the defendant at the time of divorce, and the fact that the defendant has given birth to 1 South and North between the claimant and the non-claiming person, unlike the above recognition, cannot be seen as having any special circumstance that should change the above agreement with the above non-claimer's custody. In addition, considering all circumstances such as the age of the above claimant and the living attitude of the claimant and the respondent, it is reasonable to continue to designate the plaintiff as the above non-claimer.

Therefore, the respondent is obligated to pay the above non-claimer's child support according to the agreement at the time of divorce agreement. However, in the above agreement, only agreed to bear the child support within the limit of 1/2 of the defendant's revenue, but not specific consultation about the burden of the child support. Thus, the non-claimer's denial of the above non-claimer's child support has the obligation to pay the above non-claimer's child support under Article 837 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, since the public health account for the amount of the above child support, the defendant's average monthly income of at least 300,000 won is at least 30,000 won, and the situation that the claimant raises the above non-claimer's own funds until now, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the deliberation process of this case, such as each age, occupation, current family situation and living level of the parties, the age of the above claimant, and gender, etc., the respondent's claimer's child support as the above non-claimer's child support claim's age, and the above non-claimer's claim's claim amount to 10 to 5 minutes.

Therefore, since the designation of the claimant and the claim for the payment of the child support within the above recognition scope are reasonable, it shall be accepted, and since the remaining claim for the payment of the child support is groundless, it shall be dismissed. The payment of the cost of the trial shall be judged as follows: Article 9 of the Family Trial Act, Article 13 of the Personnel Litigation Act, the proviso of Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 29 of the Family Trial Act shall be applied to the pronouncement

Administrative patent judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) Kim Gyeong-chul