[1] The elements to be considered when determining the parental authority of a minor among the parents and the custodian in cases where the parents divorce

[2] Whether the parental authority and the right of custody shall always belong to the same person in relation to the parents and their children after divorce (negative), and whether the right of custody for the children after divorce may be determined to belong to either of the parents or to the other parent jointly (affirmative)

[1] Parental authority, including fostering of children, is parents' rights and duty, which directly affects the welfare of minor children. Therefore, when parents divorce, the parental authority of minor children shall be determined in the direction that is most helpful and appropriate for the growth and welfare of minor children by comprehensively taking into account all the factors such as the minor children's gender and age, parents' patriotism and intent to rear the minor children as well as the parents' desire to rear the minor children, the existence of economic ability necessary for fostering, the density between the father or the mother and the minor children, and the opinion of the minor children.

[2] In light of Articles 837 and 909(4) of the Civil Act, Article 2(1)2(b)3 and 5 of the Family Litigation Act, etc., where the parental authority and custody of the child after the divorce of the married couple are separately stipulated in different provisions, the parental authority and custody shall not always belong to the same person in the relationship between the parent and the child after the divorce, and where the parental authority and custody of the person after the divorce are determined to be jointly reverted to either of the parents or to the other parents, it shall be permitted to the extent that the given criteria are satisfied, even though it is necessary to make a careful judgment.

[1] Articles 837 and 909(4) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 837 and 909(4) of the Civil Act, Article 2(1)2(b) of the Family Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2009Meu1458, 1465 decided May 13, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 1147)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Hyeong, Attorneys Gangnam-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Principal of the case

Suwon District Court Decision 2011Reu677 decided November 29, 2011

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. Parental authority, including fostering a minor, is the parent’s right and duty, which directly affects the welfare of the minor. Therefore, in determining a minor among parents and a minor, the parents’ parental authority should 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 gender and age, parents’ patriotism and intent to rear the minor, as well as the financial ability necessary for fostering, the degree of friendship between the father or the mother and the minor, and the minor’s intent (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Meu1458, 1465, May 13, 2010, etc.).

Meanwhile, in light of Articles 837 and 909(4) of the Civil Act and Article 2(1)2(b)3 and 5 of the Family Litigation Act, etc., the parental authority and the right of custody shall not always be returned to the same person in the relationship between the parent and the child after the divorce, and the right of custody for one of the parents and the parental authority shall be jointly reverted to the other parent or the other parent, even if it is necessary to make a careful judgment, it shall be permitted to the extent that the above criteria are satisfied.

Upon examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the court below's determination that parental authority over the principal of this case belongs jointly to the plaintiff and the defendant, and that the right of custody belongs to the plaintiff, even if considering the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff, is acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the attribution of parental authority or right of custody over the person in divorce, which affected

B. Examining the records, we affirm the judgment below that the defendant's visitation right with the defendant's principal in the divorce of this case takes the plaintiff's residence into his residence and the defendant takes the principal of this case into his residence after completing the visitation right. It is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of visitation right, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the defendant's appeal

The defendant did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the statutory period, and the defendant did not find any statement in the grounds for appeal even in the petition of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)