2014drid201717 Divorce, etc.

RedAA (*********** 2**********))

Busan Address

Head of the reference domicile

Law Firm Doz.

KimB (**************************))

Address Busan Sok-gu

Busan District Court

Law Firm Doz.

(************************)

2. KimD (********* 3*********))

Busan Address

Busan District Court

January 13, 2016

February 3, 2016

1. Each of the plaintiffs is designated as a person with parental authority and a rearing authority of the case principal KimCC, and each of the defendants is designated as a person with parental authority and a custody authority of the case principal KimD.

2. The Plaintiff bears the child support for the instant principal KimCC, and the Defendant bears the child support for the instant principal KimD.

3. The plaintiff and the defendant may interview the principal of this case before the principal of this case reaches his majority:

A. The case principal KimD parts

1) Schedule

- From 00 to 19:00 each month (including accommodation)

- During the winter and winter vacation period: For each five days as determined by mutual agreement.

- New Year’s Day, New Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Day: two days each determined in consultation between the two parties.

2) Place: The place designated by the Plaintiff.

3) Method: A method in which the Plaintiff takes part in the workplace of the instant principal KimDD after completing the visitation right.

B. The case principal KimCC part

1) Schedule.

- The third Saturday 11: 00 to the next 19:00 (including accommodation);

- During the winter and winter vacation period: For each five days as determined by mutual agreement.

- New Year’s Day, New Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Day: two days each determined in consultation between the two parties.

2) Place: the place that the Defendant designates.

3) Method: A method in which the Defendant took part in the dwelling of the instant principal KimCC and completed the visitation right after the Defendant completed the visitation right.

(c) Cautions;

1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, recognizing that visitation rights are the rights of the principals of this case, shall use visitation rights as tools for emotional stability of the principals of this case.

2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, at the time of the visitation, must actively cooperate with the instant principal so that visitation rights can be conducted in a stable manner, such as asking the other party’s root or not criticisming the other party, and not leaving another schedule of the instant principal at the time of the intended visitation.

3) In the event that an interview negotiation schedule is to be modified due to the schedule or other inevitable circumstances of the principal of the case, at least three days shall be notified to the other party and the interview interference schedule may be adjusted under mutual consultation.

D. The visitation right schedule in each of the above paragraphs can be changed by subsequent consultation following the growth of the principal of the case, and should be conducted by respecting the intent of the principal of the case to the maximum extent possible.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person.

The disposition is as follows (the part of divorce, consolation money, and division of property in the lawsuit of this case was concluded as of January 13, 2016).

1. The fact of recognition (related to the situation of fostering, etc.);

A. The plaintiff has been married before the plaintiff ** in company ** the defendant, *** in company * on March 10, 2008, with the introduction of a branchr around April 14, 2009 while working for each production company, and he has reported his marriage on April 14, 2009, and he also has his company *******.**.*.*, birth, female ****.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*....)**.

B. The Plaintiff’s parent operates only a set of 20-years, and the Plaintiff’s parent franchising the instant principal KimCC on behalf of the Defendant, or after completing the kindergarten, the Plaintiff was in charge of raising the instant principal KimCC until the Defendant left the school. However, the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff franchising the operation of the Plaintiff franchising due to the reasons for health, such as franchis disc, etc. and the support of the Plaintiff franchis, etc. around the closing date of the instant argument, and the Plaintiff franchising the Plaintiff franchising.

C. The father of the Defendant * for 38 years ** after his mother retired from work as * * The Defendant’s mother has run stud rental business with the Defendant’s mother, and on behalf of the Defendant, the Defendant has been in charge of bringing up the instant principal KimD from 10 p.m. to 200 p.m.

D. The Plaintiff, as a conflict with the Defendant on June 4, 2014, moved to the instant principal KimCC and moved to the family and now, and raises the principal of the instant case. The Defendant is raising the principal of the instant case, except for the case where there are many heads of commuting to work and departure.

E. In the family survey conducted by this court, the Plaintiff stated that “the Plaintiff’s parent, alone, cannot rear the principal of absolute case, and it is not a matter that can be resolved even if the parent was paid a considerable child support from the Defendant. Even if the parent’s assistance, the parent may not see the principal of this case using soul disc, etc., but he is also under a mental and medical treatment with soulopic and fluor, so it is difficult for him to look at the principal of this case.” The Plaintiff’s parent was aware of the Plaintiff’s emotional condition in particular, and the Plaintiff was designated as the care holder of the principal of this case.

F. In the interview observation with the principal of the case who was under the court's family examination, "the plaintiff was unable to provide emotional stability in the state where there is no energy due to the fact that the plaintiff was sick with a psychiatrist, and as a result of the interview observation, he did not satise the principal of the case."

G. The defendant stated in the family survey of this court that "the defendant cannot raise the principal of this case as of the present work relationship, and that his parents should leave the principal of this case to the facility and move the principal to the facility on the weekend." The defendant's parents naturally refer to "A," so far, the defendant's parents are living well, so far, they look at the children as they are living well, so they are suffering from stress, and they are suffering from stress. The grandchildren are flicked in the roadside and flicked in the television mold without drinking well, and do not want to do so any way even if they are moving to the son."

H. The plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the mutual divorce and adjusted consolation money and the part of division of property (including Busan*** Dong************************************************, the plaintiff, and the defendant respectively) from the remainder after selling head of the case, 32% of the remainder after deducting the cost from the cost. However, the plaintiff and the person having parental authority and the person having custody over the principal of the case KimCC as the person having parental authority over the principal of the case and the person having custody over the principal KimD as the person having parental authority over the principal of the case.

(i) On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff was present on the date of mediation and complained of difficulties in appraisal due to sudden stress ******* et al., under the organizational inspection every three months, and without good cause.

[Ground of recognition] The statements of partially consistent statements, Gap 1 through 4, 7, 8, Eul 8, 9, and 10, the family investigation report on the preparation of family records, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Designation of a person with parental authority or a person with parental authority and claim for child support;

(a) Designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian;

The age of the principal of the case has yet to be old, and the principal of the case has an intention to live together with each other, and where the principal of the case is formally separated and brought up, the possibility of emotional deficiency that may arise between the principal of the case should be considered for the designation of a person with parental authority and a person with custody for the principal of the case.

However, as seen earlier in the facts of recognition, it is difficult to avoid the possibility that the principal of the case will be mentally treated, and the defendant also would be a situation where the principal of the case will be raised, considering the fact that both the principal of the case and the assistant of the case want to raise the principal of the case and are responsible for the rearing of the principal of the case, the plaintiff, including the rearing assistant, and the defendant's environment compared with the defendant's fostering environment, and there is no need to consider that any side would be improved. The plaintiff is currently suffering from health difficulties such as depression and the Athro-speing, so it is difficult to avoid the possibility that the principal of the case will be brought up, and the defendant would not be a situation where the principal of the case will be brought up in both of the principal of the case due to work relations. In full view of the above facts, the plaintiff and the person having parental authority over the principal of the case and the person having parental authority over the principal of the case, and the person having parental authority over the principal of the case and the person having parental authority over the principal of the case.

(b) Child support;

As above, in full view of the circumstances such as the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s property and income level of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the amount of expenses incurred in fostering the principals of this case and the fostering environment, it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to pay the full amount of the child support of the instant principal KimCC, and the Defendant to bear the full amount of the child support of the instant principal KimD.

3. Interview (ex officio).

Since the Plaintiff, as a person in charge of fostering the principal KimCC, was designated respectively by the Defendant as a person in charge of fostering the principal KimD, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a non-cushion-friendly Plaintiff and the Defendant, have the right to interview the principal of the case not brought up. In full view of all circumstances such as the age, living environment, and parenting situation of the principal of the case, setting the frequency and time of visitation negotiations as described in paragraph (3) of the text of the case, is reasonable for the emotional well-being and welfare of the principal of the case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with respect to the designation of a person with parental authority, a person with parental authority, a child support, and an interview right as above.

Judges already appointed