The case holding that it is not possible for Party A, who was solicited to participate in the “child Love Family Camp” prepared for the recovery of relations between the separated child-care-friendly and his/her children, to unilaterally demand visitation rights on the ground of his/her own position without seeking the appraisal of Party B (B)

The case holding that Gap's visitation right cannot be allowed on the ground that it is not desirable for Eul's own will without any preparation and effort to take part in the above family campaign and unilaterally demand the visitation right on the ground of his own position, which is recommended by the court to participate in the "child Love Family Camp" prepared to provide an opportunity for restoring the relationship between the non-child-care-friendly and his/her children who have been cut off for the past two days by living together with his/her children for 1st century, on the ground that it is not desirable for Eul's growth and emotional stability.

Article 837-2 of the Civil Act

Claimant (Law Firm Nahan, Attorney Lee Jae-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Other Party

Principal of the case

Seoul Family Court Decision 2008Ra6835 decided Dec. 29, 2008

1. The adjudication of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The appellant's appeal of this case is dismissed.

3. The total costs of adjudication shall be borne by the claimant;

1. Purport of request;

The claimant may contact the principal of the case at his residence and the place where the claimant wants from 10:0 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on the following day from 10:0 p.m. on the fourth Saturday, from 10:0 p.m. to 8:0 p.m. on the following day, and from 3:00 p.m. to 6:0 p.m. on the day of the first instance trial, in cases of drilling and the name of the Gu administration, and from 3:0 p.m. on the following day. If the

2. Purport of appeal;

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

In full view of the overall purport of the records, the following facts are acknowledged.

A. On March 26, 199, the claimant and the other party were married to bring about the principal of the case and were living separately from May 2003, and thereafter the agreement was married on October 1, 2004. At the time of separate living, the claimant raised the principal of the case, but the other party was a person with parental authority and the custodian of the principal of the case while the agreement was married to bring about the principal of the case, and thereafter the other party raises the principal of the case.

B. After the divorce, the claimant requested several occasions that the principal of the case be sent to the other party, but the other party refuses the visitation right on the ground that the principal of the case is denied.

C. The principal of the case is currently in the fifth grade of an elementary school, and refuses to reach an agreement with the applicant.

2. Determination as to visitation right

One of the parents who do not actually raise a child has the visitation right for the child, and generally, it is desirable to hold the visitation right for the child's welfare. However, it is necessary to limit the visitation right if it is judged to infringe the child's welfare.

In this case, the principal of the case expressed a strong intention to refuse the visitation right with the applicant, so it is a matter that it is difficult to alleviate the hostile or rejection of the applicant of the case, through psychological treatment, etc. for visitation right. To this end, under the cooperation of the parties, psychological treatment for the principal of the case was conducted, but has not been continued for a long time, and thereafter the court recommended the applicant to participate in the child voluntary family campaign conducted on June 12, 2010, and the other party expressed his intention to actively cooperate with the intention of refusal until now. However, the applicant is unable to participate in the second family campaign for six months, and the date of the trial was estimated and estimated at the date of the trial, but the applicant eventually refused to participate in the family campaign for October 201.

The purpose of the above family camp is to provide an opportunity to recover the relationship between a non-nurbing parent and his/her child who had been severedd in the past due to his/her living together with his/her non-nurt 2-day child. If the principal of this case voluntarily refuses to meet the family itself, such as this case, he/she may be an efficient means to enjoy the counter-nurt of his/her child. However, even though the claimant refuses to participate in the family camp over two occasions on the ground that he/she would be misunderstanding the principal of this case while he/she refuses to do so, he/she would lose this opportunity and unilaterally demand the visitation right on the ground of his/her own position without seeking the appraisal of the principal of this case. Thus, it is deemed not desirable for the claimant to conduct the visitation right against the will of the principal of this case without any preparation and effort. Therefore, at present, it is difficult at the time of the claimant to allow the visitation right.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appellant's appeal of this case shall be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and since the judgment of the first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the appeal of the other party shall be accepted and the appeal of this case shall be revoked, and it shall be dismissed and so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ahn Young-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Ma-Un