A. In a case where an agreement has already been concluded between the claimant and the respondent to bear the child support as the custodian, whether the designation of the claimant as the custodian and the child support can be deemed to have sought a change in the part of the child support burden under the above agreement (affirmative)

(b) In a case where, after a decision of the court or an agreement between the parties to raise a child has been determined, no special change in circumstances exists, whether the Family Court may alter the matter in question in light of the overall circumstances as provided in Article 837(1) and (2) of the Civil Act (affirmative)

A. In a case where an agreement was concluded between the claimant and the respondent to bear the child support as the custodian on the premise that the parties did not consult on the matters concerning the child support between the parties, and that the child support is to be borne by the respondent, but it is deemed that an agreement was already concluded between the claimant and the respondent to bear the child support, the above claim should be deemed to have sought a change in the part concerning the child support, among the matters concerning the child support as to the child support

B. Change of matters necessary for the custody of the family court once determined pursuant to the provisions of Article 837, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code shall be possible not only in the case of a special change of circumstances after the original decision, but also in the case where it is deemed that the original decision was unfairly made in light of the overall circumstances stipulated in the above Article of the Civil Code, and even in the case where the parties agreed to determine matters concerning the custody and then request a change of such matters to the family court, the family court may change such matters if it is deemed that the matters determined by the parties after consultation are unfair in light of the overall circumstances stipulated in the above Article of the Civil Code,

A.B. Articles 837(1) and 837(2) of the Civil Act; Articles 2(1)(b)(3) and 34 of the Family Litigation Act; Article 11(b) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act; Article 19(1) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Act

Claimant

appellees

Seoul High Court Decision 89Reu4246 delivered on June 15, 1990

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the claimant.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the claimant who is a married couple and the respondent shall prepare a statement of economic burden, such as living expenses or school expenses, to the effect that the defendant will not be imposed on the defendant, on April 21, 1980 and, without any special agreement between the parties with respect to the fostering of the person born between the married couple and the defendant, the defendant, who is the husband, shall, in fact, rear the defendant and the defendant 2. On May 27, 198, the claimant shall, after being aware that the non-party 1 was affected by Gyeyang's abuse, and the defendant shall raise the non-party 1's birth, with the knowledge of the fact that the non-party 1 was not the mother's birth, and requested the defendant to prepare and deliver a statement of change in circumstances to the non-party 1, who did not request the above child support from the claimant to the extent that the non-party 1 did not request the above transfer of the child support to the defendant, and therefore, the respondent shall not request the non-party 1 to bear any special reasons.

2. First of all, according to the records, the claimant's claim of this case was the purport of designating the claimant as the custodian for the court on the premise that the parties did not consult on matters concerning the custody of the child, and the child support is to be borne by the respondent. According to the above finalized facts of the judgment of the court below, an agreement has already been concluded between the claimant and the respondent to the effect that the claimant would become the custodian for the child support, and the child support shall be borne by the guardian. In light of the records, there is no ground for misunderstanding the decision of the court below. Thus, the claim of this case should be determined by considering the purport of seeking the change of the part concerning the child support among the matters

3. However, according to the provisions of Article 837 (1) and (2) of the Civil Act, a party who has divorced from a family court shall determine matters concerning the fostering of the person by consultation, and if the parties fail to reach an agreement or are unable to reach an agreement, the family court shall, at the request of the parties, determine matters necessary for the fostering of the person, by taking into account the age of the person, the financial status of his parents, and other circumstances, and at any time change or take other appropriate measures. Any change in matters necessary for the rearing determined by the family court pursuant to the above provisions shall be possible not only in cases where there is a special change after the original decision but also in cases where it is deemed that the original decision was unfair in light of the overall circumstances stipulated in the above Article 837 (1) and (2) of the Civil Act. Even in cases where the parties have agreed to determine matters concerning the fostering of the person and then request a change in the matters to the family court, the family court may

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below in this case, the non-party 1, who is the claimant and the respondent, was born under the Masssk, and the mother was found to be the claimant, by avoiding the abuse of the mother, and the claimant was required to receive a document from the respondent in accordance with the procedure for transfer to school in order to raise the non-party 1, and the respondent was required to conclude an agreement with the court at the time of original adjudication on the ground that the respondent was responsible for all the responsibilities for fostering the non-party 1 on the condition that the respondent respondeds to the above agreement. Thus, at the time of the above agreement, it is obvious that the claimant was the applicant and the defendant would have concluded an agreement at an unfavorable point because it was obvious that he would have caused the need to directly raise himself or directly, and when examining all the circumstances revealed in the arguments by the record, it seems that the respondent's ability to receive the financial benefits from the non-party 1 or the financial benefits from the State as a public official in the name of the applicant.

Considering such circumstances, at least at the time of the conclusion of the pleadings by the lower court, there is no room to deem that imposing the child support entirely on the applicant under the above agreement is unreasonable. Therefore, even though the lower court should have decided whether to maintain or modify the above agreement, taking into account such overall circumstances, it cannot be said that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the amendment of the agreement between the parties to divorce, or by failing to exhaust all deliberations, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)