(a) Judgment of nullity or revocation of marriage or divorce, and disposition concerning fostering of children;

(b) Scope of child support to be claimed to the other party where one party in a de facto marital relationship has been designated as a custodian of the child born between the other party;

A. In a case where a judgment on nullity or revocation of a marriage or divorce is rendered, the parties concerned may seek a disposition concerning fostering and bringing up the person who will raise and bringing up the person within the relevant adjudication procedure in accordance with Article 30 of the Personnel Litigation Act when the relevant adjudication procedure is in progress, and after the said adjudication procedure is completed, it is reasonable to view that the above disposition can be sought at the court by analogical interpretation of the provisions of Article 837 of the Civil Act and Article 2(1) Item (f) of the Family Trial Act (disposition concerning bringing up the person between

B. A party who was in a de facto marital relationship may not claim the child support to the other party only when the judgment designating the person who gave birth between him and the other party becomes final and conclusive, and the other party has the right to claim the child support and fulfilled his/her duty to rear himself/herself until the transfer.

Article 837 of the Civil Code, Article 30 of the Personnel Litigation Act, Article 2 of the Family Trial Act

Claimant

Defendant 1 and two others

Suwon District Court of the first instance (Law No. 88D.194) Sungnam Branch Court of the District Court

1. The part against the respondent ordering payment of consolation money in excess of twenty thousand won jointly and severally against the respondent among the part demanding consolation money in the original adjudication shall be revoked, and the appellant's claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. The incidental appeal by the appellant and the remaining appeals by the appellee are all dismissed;

3. The incidental costs of appeal among the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the claimant, while the remainder, other than the incidental costs of appeal, by the first and second instances, shall be borne by the claimant, and the remainder by the respondent, respectively.

4. A provisional execution may be effected on the part with no declaration of provisional execution under paragraph (1) of the main sentence of the original adjudication.

The defendants pay 70,000,000 won to the appellant jointly and severally.

A person born between the respondent 1 and the claimant, and one other (the birth on February 18, 1986) shall be brought up by the claimant.

The respondent 1 shall pay 300,000 won per month to the appellant from February 19, 1986 to the date when the respondent 1 reaches the age of majority.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent and a provisional execution order on the above monetary payment.

Among the original adjudication, the part against the respondent shall be revoked, and the appellant's claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

The court costs shall be borne by the claimant in the first and second instances.

Of the original adjudication, the part against the claimant shall be revoked.

The defendants jointly and severally pay 40,000,000 won to the appellant.

The respondent 1 shall pay 200,000 won to the appellant each month from February 19, 1986 to February 17, 2006.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by all the defendants in the first and second instances and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. Determination on the claim for consolation money

각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 4(각 호적등본), 갑 제2호증의 1 내지 3(각 주민등록표등본), 갑 제3호증의 1(가사심판사건기록표지, 을 제3호증의1과 같다), 4(이혼심판 및 위자료, 양육자 지정등 청구서), 5(조사불능보고서), 갑 제4호증의 1(가사항소소송기록표지), 5,6,7,18,20(각 증인신문조서), 9(불기소사건 기록표지 을 제2호증의6과 같다), 10(사실과 이유, 을 제2호증의 7과 같다) 13(의견서),15(진술조서), 19(감정서) 을 제1호증의 3(의견서),11(피의자신문조서), 을 제2호증의 1(소송기록표지)의 각 기재와 원심증인 청구외 2, 당심증인 청구외 3의 각 증언 및 원심조사관 정재진 작성의 조사보고서의 기재(뒤에 믿지않는 부분은 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 청구인은 서울 (명칭 생략)여자중학교를 졸업한 후 삼영전자주식회사의 종업원으로 근무하고 있었고 피청구인 1은 (명칭 생략고등학교를 졸업한 후 일정한 직업없이 집에서 놀고있던 중 청구외 2의 중매로 서로 혼인하기로 합의하고 1985.5.25. 양가 부모의 승낙을 얻어 성남시 태평동에 있는 태평예식장에서 결혼식을 올린 후 피청구인 1의 주거지에서 시부모를 모시고 신혼생활을 시작한 사실, 피청구인 1은 원래 농아자로서 그의 부모들이 농아교육을 받게 하지 아니하고 일반학교에 취학을 시켰기 때문에 고등학교까지 졸업하고서도 한글을 제대로 해독하지 못하는 저능아인 사실, 피청구인 1의 아버지인 망 청구외 4는 피청구인 1의 혼처를 구하지 못하여 매우 고심하다가 위 청구외 2에게 청구인과 피청구인 1 사이의 혼인중매를 부탁하면서 혼인이 성사되면 청구인의 친정부모에게 금 50,000,000원 상당의 집 한채를 마련해 주겠다고 제의한 사실, 그당시 청구인의 친정부모들은 사업에 실패하고 집 한칸없이 사글세 방을 얻어 사는 가난한 생활을 하던 처지였으므로 청구인은 혼인이 성사되면 위 청구외 4가 청구인의 친정에 그와 같은 경제적 도움을 줄 것이라고 기대하고서 친정을 위하여 자신을 희생하는 셈치고 장애인의 피청구인 1와의 혼인을 쉽게 동의한 사실, 그후 청구인은 위 청구외 4로부터 혼수비용으로 금 2,000,000원을 받아 그 돈으로 혼수를 장만하여 앞서 본 바와 같이 혼인식을 올렸는데 청구인이 피청구인 1와 혼인하자 위 청구외 4는 청구인의 친정부모에게 집 한채를 사 주기로 한 약속을 어기고 전세금 4,000,000원의 집 한채를 청구인 친정부모에게 얻어 주면서 그 전세금 4,000,000원 마저 청구인의 친정부모에게 직접 주지 않으려고 하여 양가 사이에 불화가 생기자 청구인은 이에 불만을 품고 같은 해 7.20. 친정으로 가버린 사실, 그후 시아버지인 위 청구외 4와 시누이인 피청구인 2의 설득으로 같은 달 24. 청구인이 시집으로 돌아왔으나 그 다음날인 7.25. 위 청구외 4가 원인불명으로 갑자기 사망한 사실, 그러자 시어머니인 피청구인 3과 시누이인 피청구인 2는 청구인이 시집을 잘못와서 위 청구외 4가 사망한 것이라고 청구인에게 책임을 전가하며 위 청구외 4의 장지에서부터 "청구인이 액운을 끼고 시집을 와서 시아버지를 잡아 먹었다. 3개월 후에는 시어머니까지 잡아먹는다"고 청구인에게 폭언과 구타를 하면서 청구인을 몹시 구박한 사실, 뿐만 아니라 시누이인 피청구인 2는 청구외 5와 혼인하여 서울에서 살고 있었음에도 위 청구외 4의 사망 후에는 어머니인 피청구인 3이 고령이고 동생인 피청구인 1가 농아자라서 집안일을 제대로 돌볼수 없다는 구실로 아예 친정으로 이사를 와 피청구인 3, 1와 동거하면서 청구인의 행동을 일일이 간섭하고 시집에서 나가지 않으면 죽여버리겠다고 위협을 하고, 청구인의 머리채를 잡아 흔들면서 나가라고 집 밖으로 끌어내기도 한 사실, 또한 남편인 피청구인 1까지도 이에 가세하여 청구인과의 동거를 거부하고 임신중인 청구인을 구타하므로 청구인은 피청구인들의 학대와 수모를 견디지 못하고 같은 해 8.19.경 친정으로 피신하였다가 같은 달23. 청구인의 친정모인 청구외 3이 피청구인들의 집에 찾아가 부당축출을 항의하던 끝에 피청구인들로부터 폭행을 당하자 1986.1.7.경 피청구인들을 상대로 수원지방검찰청에 혼인빙자간음, 사기죄로 고소를 제기한 사실, 그후 청구인이 1986.2.18. 성남시 신흥 3동 2494에 있는 정 구윤 산부인과 의원에서 남자아이인 청구외 1을 출산하게 되자 청구인은 그 다음날인 2.19. 피청구인 1의 인장을 새겨 성남시장에게 청구인과 피청구인 1간의 혼인신고를 하였고 이러한 사실을 안 피청구인들은 청구인의 병원비 지급을 거절하면서 1986.4.9.경 수원지방법원 성남지원 86드144호 로 혼인무효심판청구를 제기하여 같은 해 9.23. 위 법원에서 위 혼인신고는 사실

When the judgment in favor of the respondent was rendered on October 17 of the same year, that the relationship of divorce has broken down and the respondent entered a separate state, and the judgment in favor of the respondent has become final and conclusive on October 17 of the same year, it can be recognized that the appellant has obtained a favorable judgment of the appellant on October 12, 1987, by modifying the purport of the appeal against only the respondent 1 as the natural father of the respondent on October 12, 1987, after the appellant filed a request for adjudication such as divorce, consolation money and designation of custodyer against the respondent under the above court No. 86d404 of the same year, but at once during the trial, the appellant was aware that only the respondent 1 is the natural father of the respondent. The above investigation report and Eul against the above recognition are not subject to a favorable judgment of the appellant on October 12, 1987, the above investigation report and Eul evidence No. 4 through 10-2, 3, 4, 5 (Protocol of Examination), 10 (Protocol of Witness).

According to the above facts of recognition, a de facto marriage between the claimant and the respondent 1 is a de facto marriage between the respondent and the respondent 1 by avoiding the defendant's abuse on August 19, 1985, and the cause of the de facto marriage is a de facto marriage between the respondent 1 and the respondent 1. As such, if the marriage is married, the defendant's promise to collect the debt from the defendant's mother to the death of the defendant's mother, and the above claim 4, the plaintiff, who is the Simburin, is held liable for the death of the claimant's house and the death of the Dong, and the defendant unfairly reduced the defendant's death by abusing the plaintiff's house. Thus, the defendant's joint and several acts as a joint tortfeasor, which caused mental suffering by the defendant's wrongful destruction of the above de facto marriage, can easily be inferred in accordance with our rule of law, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay money or pay money.

Furthermore, with regard to the amount of consolation money, the amount of consolation money to be paid to the claimant shall be determined as KRW 20,000,000, in consideration of various circumstances shown in the pleadings of this case such as the health team, the age, academic background, occupation, property level, the background leading up to the marriage between the claimant and the respondent, the period leading up to the marriage, the period leading up to the failure of the marriage, and the cause and circumstances leading up to the failure of the marriage.

2. Determination on the designation of a custodian and the claim for child support

The fact that the appellant was born on February 18, 1986 and the respondent refused to grant birth on February 18, 1986 and the stamps other than the above claim 1, and the appellant filed a lawsuit against the respondent 1 in the Sungnam branch of the Suwon District Court and received a judgment in favor of the claimant on October 12, 1987, and confirmed on October 12, 1987.

The claimant may request the designation of a person who is a child born outside the above claim 1 as a child of the person who is born. The defendant's request for designation of a person who is brought up can only be made a judgment of nullity of marriage, revocation of marriage, or divorce, and the defendant's request for designation of a person who is brought up can not be made in the case where a de facto marital relationship is terminated as in this case. Thus, according to Article 30 of the Personnel Litigation Act, in a case where a judgment of nullity or revocation of marriage or divorce is rendered, the court may, upon the request of the parties, determine matters concerning fostering and bringing up the person who is to bring up the person at the request of the parties. If the above procedure is in progress, it may be claimed within the above procedure, and after the above procedure is completed, Article 837 of the Civil Act, Article 2 (1) (f) of the Family Trial Act and Article 2 (1) (f) of the above Act shall be reasonable to protect the person who has brought up the person who is brought up and brought up the person against the defendant.

Furthermore, with respect to whom it is reasonable to determine who is the career of Nonparty 1, the Health Center, and the respondent 1, as the deaf-mute, are unable to receive proper education, and the defendant 1, as well as the defendant 1, refused to grant the care for the above non-party 1, and refused to recognize that the non-party 1 was not his own consciousness at the time of birth of the above non-party 1, and the claimant has been raising the above non-party 1 until then after childbirth, and the defendant has been born the above non-party 1, as well as the child who is under the age of 3 years with the age of 3, the mother has continued to be in accordance with his own love and care, and considering the various circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, it is deemed appropriate to designate the birth-child applicant as the career of the above non-party 1 for his own smooth growth and welfare.

In addition, the respondent 1 who is responsible for supporting the non-party 1 as long as the claimant was designated as the rearinger of the non-party 1, has the obligation to pay the child support to the claimant until February 17, 2006 when the judgment on designation of the rearinger of this case became final and conclusive, and the amount of the child support has to be paid to the claimant by February 17, 2006. Furthermore, considering the various circumstances mentioned in the pleadings of this case, such as health room, the age of the non-party 1, the age of the claimant and the respondent 1, the degree of life and property of the claimant and the respondent 1, the personal relation, and the education expenses, it is reasonable that the respondent 1 should pay 100,000

However, after the claimant gave birth to the non-party 1 on February 18, 1986, the claimant has been obligated to support the non-party 1 on February 19, 1986, which is the date following the birth of the claimant for the non-party 1 until now, but the biological mother is also obligated to support the non-party 1, and the claimant has the right to claim the non-party 1 only when the judgment on designation of the child under this case became final and conclusive. Thus, even if the claimant has been bringing up the non-party 1 until the date of birth and continues to bring up the non-party 1 in the future, he is merely performing his own own obligation of care until the judgment on designation of the child under this case becomes final and conclusive, and thus this part of the child support cannot be claimed

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the petitioner's appeal of this case is justified within the scope of seeking payment of KRW 100,00 per month from the date when the judgment on designation of the rearing child became final to February 17, 2006, and the remainder of the claim for consolation money and child support shall be dismissed in all as well as the remaining claim for consolation money and child support shall be justified. The judgment of this case shall be accepted in part of the defendant's appeal and shall be accepted in excess of KRW 20,00,00 among the claim for consolation money, and it shall be unfair to accept in part of the defendant's appeal, and the above part against the respondent ordering payment exceeding KRW 20,00,000 of consolation money for consolation money for the above recognition shall be dismissed, and all incidental appeal of the claimant and the defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed for all reasons. With respect to the bearing of litigation expenses, Article 9 of the Family Trial Act, Article 13 of the Personnel Litigation Act, Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 92 of the Provisional Execution Act, Article 96 and Article 9 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied.

Judge Final (Presiding Judge)