The case holding that there is a serious reason to make it impossible to exercise parental authority over self-supports to those who do not make any effort to support their children, such as by receiving compensation in full and making almost all consumption after the husband died due to traffic accidents after the husband was separated from her husband, etc.;

The case holding that if the mother left her husband and her mother with infertility with her husband and her mother and left her husband's own consciousness and left her husband's house and died due to a traffic accident, the mother did not attend the funeral and did not make efforts to support her children, such as not receiving compensation for the traffic accident of her husband even though she did not look at the future problem, and she did not make every effort to receive compensation for the traffic accident of her husband and she consumed and throw away by her child, and if she wishes to protect her child at the bottom of her mother as currently, she cannot exercise her parental authority over her mother, there is a serious reason for not allowing her mother to exercise her mother's parental authority.

Article 924 of the Civil Act

A

B

Seoul High Court Decision 90Reu3614 delivered on August 20, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the defendant born the principal of this case to the non-party C by reason of his macroficial evidence, but the husband and his father were married to the non-party C, left her own consciousness around September 1984 due to infertility with the father and his mother, and lived separately with the above C while continuing to communicate with the above C, and even when the above couple living together with the defendant, the defendant did not find any child at all after the above separate birth or did not look at it, and that the above C did not have any son's death due to traffic accident, but did not attend the funeral ceremony, and that there was no serious reason for finding that the defendant did not receive compensation for the traffic accident of the above C, and that there was no reason to recognize that the defendant did not exercise his parental authority at all, and that there was no reason for finding that the defendant's child was under protection, such as the defendant's child's child's child's care, and that there was no reason to recognize the above fact that the defendant did not exercise his own parental authority.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)