208Meu3800 Divorce and consolation money

Plaintiff:

Defendant:

Principal 1 et al.

Gwangju District Court Decision 2007Reu303 Decided January 24, 2008

May 8, 2008

Of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the claim for the designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian and the visitation right are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Parental authority, including fostering of children, is parents' rights and duty, which directly affects the welfare of minor children and thus, in determining who is a minor child and a custodian in case of parents' divorce, the parental authority should be determined in the direction that is most helpful and appropriate for the growth and welfare of minor children, by comprehensively taking into account all the factors such as the sex and age of minor children, parents' patriotism and intent for fostering of minor children, financial ability necessary for fostering, social density between the father or mother and minor children, opinion of minor children, etc.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below started living together with the plaintiff and the defendant around 1991.

12. The facts that the principal of the case was born on June 18, 2001 and was born on June 18, 2001, and the two-year old children at the time of the closure of the arguments at the fact-finding court, the plaintiff and the defendant found that the cause of not giving birth to the principal of the case after marriage was found to exist due to the plaintiff's artificial insemination, the plaintiff gave birth to the principal of the case by a third party, and the plaintiff did not have much time after the birth of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did assault and take a bath to the defendant since long time after the birth of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol on her friendship and the new wall, knife the knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife kn's own ability to raise the plaintiff and the defendant of the case.

However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the facts acknowledged by the court below, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below, as it is, in light of the following.

In other words, the principal of the case is doubtful that the defendant was born through artificial insemination, that the plaintiff and the defendant had started to be living separately, and that there seems to have been any special problem in fostering the principal of the case, and that the principal of the case seems to be helpful for the sound growth and welfare of the principal of the case until he has now reached the age of six years of age, and thus, until he has emotional maturity, raising the defendant would be helpful for the sound growth and welfare of the principal of the case. It may be doubtful whether the defendant is equipped with the economic ability necessary for fostering the principal of the case. However, considering these points comprehensively, it is reasonable to designate the plaintiff as a person with parental authority and the custodian of the principal of the case by changing the current state of fostering the principal of the case and designating the plaintiff as a person with parental authority and the custodian of the principal of the case, for the just purpose of designating the plaintiff as a person with parental authority and custodian of the principal of the case, is not helpful for the sound growth and welfare of the principal of the case.

Nevertheless, the court below did not properly examine and determine whether allowing the defendant to continuously rear the principal of the case, rather than supporting the sound growth and welfare of the principal of the case, and rather hindering the plaintiff, and whether the designation of the plaintiff as a person with parental authority and a person with parental authority is helpful to the sound growth and welfare of the principal of the case. Thus, the court below did not designate the plaintiff as a person with parental authority and the person with parental authority and the person with custody of the principal of the case, and allowed the visitation right to the defendant on the premise of the designation. In this part of the court below's judgment, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the designation of a person with parental authority and the person with custody,

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part concerning the claim for designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian of the case and the visitation right are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Si-hwan

Justices Yang Sung-tae

Justices Park Il-il

Justices Kim Nung-hwan