[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Completion of Attorney-at-Law)

Principal of the case

August 17, 2018

Incheon Family Court Decision 2017ddan109885 decided February 20, 2018

1. The parts of the parental authority and child support, the claim for delivery of the principal of the case, the claim for child support, and the visitation right, as stated in each of subparagraphs 2 through 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be changed as stated below.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant shall be jointly designated as a person with parental authority and care of the principal of the case.

3. The method of joint rearing:

A. The plaintiff raises the principal of the case from every week 17:00 to 17:00 each day, and the defendant raises the principal of the case from every week 17:0 to Sundays 17:00 each day.

B. The method of delivering the principal of the case is 17:00 each week from the Defendant to the principal of the case in front of the Plaintiff’s residence, and it is 17:00 each week from the Plaintiff to the principal of the case in front of the Defendant’s residence.

C. The plaintiff and the defendant may revise the joint rearing method through subsequent consultation following the change of circumstances, such as the growth of the principal of the case, and when the above joint rearing method is modified, the intention of the principal of the case shall be respected and reflected as much as possible.

4. After opening a joint account with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant deposited the joint account from October 31, 2018 to October 31, 2018 with the instant principal’s child support, the Plaintiff shall deposit KRW 300,000 per month to the said account at the end of each month, and the Defendant shall deposit KRW 90,000 per month to the said account at the end of each month. The Plaintiff and the Defendant shall use

5. The plaintiff's claim for delivery and child support for the principal of the case are dismissed, respectively.

6. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The plaintiff and the defendant shall be divorced. The defendant shall designate the plaintiff as the person with parental authority and the guardian of the principal of this case. The defendant shall deliver the principal of this case to the plaintiff. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff one million won per month as the child support of the principal of this case until the day before the principal of this case becomes adult.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

Among the judgment of the first instance, the part concerning claims for child support and visitation rights shall be modified as follows:

1) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff one million won per month from the day after he delivered the principal of the case to the day before the principal of the case becomes adult.

2) The Defendant may visitation the principal of the case as follows.

A) Until June 22, 2019, the principal of the case was 24 months.

(a) Schedule: From 12 p.m. to 17 p.m. on every Saturday; and

(2) Method: The place where the principal’s residence or residence is adjacent; and

B) B. The principal of the case will become adult from the time 24 months have elapsed;

(1) A given period: Second, each month, fourth, from 12th Saturday to 17th, the following day.

(2) Method: The method by which the defendant takes the principal of the case in his residence and takes him back again to the same place after completing the visitation right.

C) Specific schedule and method of visitation may be adjusted through consultation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

D) The Plaintiff shall actively cooperate with the Defendant to smoothly conduct the interview right, and shall not interfere with this.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant as to the remaining part of the judgment of the first instance, excluding the part on the claim for divorce, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

As to the claim for child support and visitation right in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant appealed from the judgment of the court of first instance as to the claim for designation of a person with parental authority and custodian, the claim for delivery of the principal of the case, the claim for child support, and the visitation right. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for designation of a person with parental authority and custodian, the claim

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are legally married couple who reported marriage on December 27, 2016, and have a minor case principal between them.

B. The Plaintiff had been able to take the 8-math of the way before the marriage with the Defendant as the center of 8-math.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant discussed whether the roadsides continued to appear together with the instant principal, but the Defendant transferred the roadsides to the studio operated by the Plaintiff’s parents for the healthy rearing environment of the instant principal, while the Defendant was demanding the Plaintiff to pay rent to the Plaintiff’s parents, the Plaintiff could not leave the roadsides. Therefore, the Defendant demanded that the instant principal go in the house.

D. Accordingly, the Defendant contacted the Defendant’s parents to go back to the Defendant’s main body located in ○○, and the Defendant’s mother, who was contacted by the Defendant, received a letter of the following contents from the Plaintiff, and went to go to the Defendant and the principal of the case.

본문내 포함된 표 (날짜 2 생략) 날짜로 사건본인을 ○○집으로 보냅니다. 사건본인 엄마인 원고는 이에 동의하여 각서를 씁니다.

마. 원고는 2017. 7. 28. 피고에게 “이혼서류 준비해 놨다. 도장 찍어“라고 문자를 보냈고, 2017. 8. 22. 이 사건 소를 제기하였다.

F. On September 12, 2017, the date of the prior disposition of the first instance court held on September 12, 2017 and the date of the first pleading, the Plaintiff was pointed out to the effect that it is not desirable for the Plaintiff to raise the instant principal and the roadsides together with the instant principal for the instant principal’s welfare. The Plaintiff transferred the roadsides to the studio operated by the Plaintiff’s parents.

사. 원고는 2017. 9. 21.부터 2017. 9. 27.까지는 평일 2시간씩, 2017. 10.경부터 2017. 11.경까지는 주 3회 2시간씩 시댁을 방문하여 사건본인에 대한 면접교섭을 실시하였고, 이후 제1심법원 가사조사관의 권고에 따라 2017. 12. 26.경부터는 매주 1박 2일 동안 자신의 주거지에서 사건본인에 대한 면접교섭을 실시하였다.

H. On September 29, 2017, in order to increase the time together with the principal in the instant case, the Defendant moved into a karaoke machine located in △△ City operated by himself, and the principal in the instant case was raised not later than the time the first instance judgment is rendered, with the aid of her mother.

(i) On February 20, 2018, the first instance court designated the Plaintiff as a person with parental authority and a custodian of the principal of the case, and ordered the Defendant to deliver the principal of the case to the Plaintiff. The Defendant, according to the first instance judgment, issued a written judgment on the following contents after delivering the principal of the case to the Plaintiff, and shared with the Plaintiff by putting together the food consumption, the surface of the water, etc. of the principal of the case, and conducted visitation negotiations for the principal of the case as prescribed by the first instance judgment.

The conclusion of the ticket (mar) written in the main text does not lead to confusion and power any longer until the principal of the case. The reasons for this decision are as follows: the width that he knows and knows; how much he knows, and how much he knows and love the principal of the case; how much he knows and he knows, and how much he knows, the existence of a "mar," which makes it impossible for the principal of the case to make any effort to reduce his love, and the (mar) will be received in this situation as well as the (mar) will not be able to respect him as the custodian of the principal of the case, for a period of time when he regards the principal of the case. The reason for this decision is how much he knows, how much he knows, and how much he knows and love the principal of the case. The author of the case would be free from the new method of care, and the author of the case will be free from the method of fostering the principal of the case.

(j) On the other hand, after receiving the principal of the case from the Defendant in accordance with the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff proposed that the principal of the case be locked frequently at night, and that the Defendant should not participate in accommodation visitation as determined by the first instance court between the parties, and sent text messages with the following contents.

I would like to make a half of the instant person's life, which is included in the text of this paragraph. I would like to do so if I would like to do so even if I would like to do so. I would like to do so by making I will do so, and we would like to do so. I would like to do my own fry, so we would like to do so, even if I would like to do so. I would like to do so. I would like to make I would like to know that I would not know about the instant person's home? I would like to do so. I would like to see that I would like to do so if I would like to do so. I would like to do so. I would like to see that I would like to make I would like to see our family head's home? I would not have to do so. I would like to see that I would like to do so. I would like to see that I would like to see our family head's home. I will not have to do so. I would like to do so. I would like to us we would like to us. I would like to us. I will we will like to us to us. I will not us. I will we will we will we will. we will. we will. we will. we will. we will. we will. we will. we will. we will.. we will. we will. we will. we will not. we will................. we will... we will.........................

(k) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not have any special occupation at the present time, and the Defendant stated that there was an income equivalent to KRW 400-5 million per month by operating a singing practice room at the time of family investigation by a family affairs investigator of the first instance court.

[Ground of recognition] Gap 1 through 3, 10, 15, 16, Eul 1, 3, 5, 11, 12, 16, and 18 through 23, Gap 17's voice, family investigation report by the first instance court's family investigation officer, and the purport of whole pleadings

3. Determination as to a person with parental authority and a custodian, a claim for delivery of the principal of the case, a claim for child support, and visitation right

A. Determination as to the designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian

1) Relevant legal principles

Parental authority, including fostering a minor, is the parent's right and duty, which directly affects the welfare of the minor and thus, in determining who is a minor's child's parent's child's child's parents' designation as a minor child or a custodian in cases of divorce, it shall be determined in the direction that is most helpful and appropriate for the growth and welfare of the minor, by comprehensively taking into account all the factors such as the minor's sex and age, parents' patriotism and intent for fostering, as well as the economic ability necessary for fostering, the degree of friendship between the father or mother and the minor, and the minor's opinion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Meu380, May 8, 2008; 2008Meu3105, Apr. 9, 2009).

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the above facts and evidence as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, it is desirable to designate the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the person with parental authority and the joint rearing authority, rather than designating the Plaintiff or the Defendant as the person with parental authority and the joint rearing authority, so that the principal of the case may grow up in a healthy and balanced manner with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, without being friendly on one side.

① The Defendant was in exclusive charge of fostering the principal of the instant case for about eight months from the time the principal of the instant case was born to approximately three weeks, to the time the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, and there seems to be no circumstance to deem that it interfered with the principal’s welfare during the said period.

② At present, the Defendant is extremely high to nurture the principal of this case, and has an environment suitable for fostering the principal of this case compared to the Plaintiff, and in the process of exercising the visitation right as prescribed by the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant appeared to cooperate with the Plaintiff as the top priority in the conflict between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, such as taking the principal’s food and the surface of the water, and sharing it with the Plaintiff.

③ After the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, the Plaintiff did not seem to have had any special circumstance to deem that he had impaired the welfare of the principal of this case during the above period. The Plaintiff committed a leasing business with the aid of his parents who did not engage in economic activities but committed a great difficulty in raising the principal of this case.

④ However, the Plaintiff voluntarily renounced the custody of the principal of the instant case, which did not form a month in which the principal of the instant case was selected and born. After the judgment of the first instance, the Plaintiff continuously sent text messages to the Defendant to the effect that, after the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant is fully responsible for the failure of marriage and the Defendant is solely responsible for the failure of marriage, and that, in the future, the Defendant would be excluded from the process of solely fostering the principal of the instant case, and that the principal of the instant case would inject a negative perception with respect to the Defendant.

In light of these circumstances and the causes and the process of the dispute in this case, if the Plaintiff is designated solely by a person with parental authority and a custodian of the principal of this case, the Plaintiff seems to have a risk of providing an inappropriate rearing environment to the principal of this case, such as bringing the roadsides into the house. In the process of fostering the principal of this case, it is likely to prevent the principal of this case and the defendant from forming a normal father-child relationship by inducing the negative prejudice against the principal of this case.

(5) If a divorced parent is designated as a joint person of parental authority and a joint rearer of the child, there is a problem such as economic and time loss due to the relationship that the child left the place of his/her parent's residence on a regular basis, and a conflict between the parents may cause emotional confusion between the child and his/her child.

However, the defendant raised the principal of the case before the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, and exercised the visitation right to the principal of the case during the weekends after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered. In light of the following positive attitude such as: (a) the substantial change in the environment for fostering the principal of the case was not significant when the method of joint rearing was determined as follows; (b) the principal of the case is not yet 1 years old; (c) there is considerable time to cause confusion due to environmental change; (d) the plaintiff and the defendant have a positive attitude such as sharing information and cooperation with respect to the fostering of the principal of the case; and (e) the plaintiff and the defendant sufficiently consult about the necessary matters in the course of conducting joint rearing of the principal of the case.

B. Determination on the method of joint rearing (ex officio determination)

On the other hand, while there is no time limit in fostering the principal of this case due to the absence of any particular occupation, the defendant has a time limit in fostering the principal of this case due to the relation of running a singing practice room, there is a need for the mother of the assistant, and at present, the plaintiff raises the principal of this case according to the first instance judgment, and the principal exercises the visitation right to the principal of this case, and the defendant exercises the visitation right to the principal of this case in order to prevent confusion in the principal of this case, the method of joint rearing shall be determined as stated in paragraph (3) of this Article.

C. Determination on the claim for child support

1) The Plaintiff’s claim for child support, based on the premise that the Plaintiff is designated as a person with parental authority and guardian of the principal of the case, as well as the Defendant jointly designating the Plaintiff and the Defendant, is without merit.

2) However, it is necessary to determine the child support to be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant when jointly raising the principal of the case. In light of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of the case, such as the plaintiff and the defendant's occupation, income, property, the age of the principal of the case, the parenting environment, the period of custody, the child support calculation table published by the Seoul Family Court, and the purpose of joint rearing, the following matters

3) The Plaintiff and the Defendant make a joint deposit account, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant make a joint deposit account from October 31, 2018 to October 31, 2018 with the child support of the principal of the case, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant deposited KRW 300,000 per month to the day before the principal of the case reaches the adult age, and the Defendant deposited KRW 90,000 per month to each of the above accounts as at the end of each month, and the Plaintiff

D. Determination on the claim for delivery of an infant

As long as the plaintiff and the defendant are jointly designated as the person with parental authority and the guardian of the principal of the case, the plaintiff's claim for delivery of infant against the defendant who is premised on the designation of the plaintiff as the person with parental authority

E. Determination on the visitation right part

Since the plaintiff and the defendant are jointly designated as the person with parental authority and the guardian of the case, the visitation right part for the non-nurbing person is not judged separately.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for child support, the defendant's claim for delivery of the principal of the case are dismissed, and the designation of the person with parental authority and the person with parental authority, the method of fostering, and the share of child support shall be determined as above, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Jeong-young (Presiding Judge)

1) The date following the Plaintiff gave birth to the principal of the case and released from a postnatal care center.

2) It seems desirable for the Plaintiff and the Defendant to receive two copies of the physical card and divide them into one, and to disburse the expenses necessary for fostering the principal of the case using the physical card owned by each person during the period of fostering the principal of the case, and to have the other party review the case with the supporting material when transferring the principal of the case to the other party.