[1] Where a claimant who has no right of custody raises a child at his/her discretion after the mediation of designation of a person with parental authority and a person with custody of the child is completed, whether the other party may claim a child support for a voluntary rearing (negative)

[2] In a case where, after a court decision or conciliation has determined matters concerning raising a child by a court decision or conciliation, it is recognized that such matters are unfair in light of all the circumstances as stipulated in Article 837 (2) of the Civil Code, even if there is no special change in circumstances (affirmative)

[3] The method of handling an appeal for counter-appeal in a case where it is reasonable to cite the appeal after an examination of the main appeal on change and designation of the person with parental authority of the applicant and the person with parental authority of the person with parental authority of the applicant and the person with custody

[1] Where the petitioner and the other party are divorced and a person in parental authority and the custodian of the principal of the case are brought to an adjustment, the applicant does not have the right to rear his/her child unless the method of fostering under the adjustment clause is changed by any other agreement or any trial. Nevertheless, if the claimant raises his/her child at will without being subject to a prior disposition under Article 62 of the Family Litigation Act, which changes the above adjustment clause from the court temporarily, it shall be considered to be an illegal rearing in relation to the other party. Thus, the other party cannot be said to have the obligation to pay the child support to the applicant for voluntary rearing of the claimant

[2] Any subsequent modification of matters necessary for fostering decided by the family court under the provisions of Article 837 (2) of the Civil Code shall be possible not only in cases where there is a special change of circumstances after the original decision, but also in cases where it is deemed that the original decision was unfairly made in light of the overall circumstances stipulated in the above legal provisions. Even in cases where the parties have determined matters concerning the fostering of their children through the conciliation and have requested a change of such matters to the family court, the family court may modify such matters at any time when it is deemed unfair in light of the overall circumstances stipulated in the above legal provisions, and shall not change them only in cases where there is a special change of circumstances after the formation of conciliation.

[3] In a case where the claimant who actually raises his/her child files an appeal to request the change and designation of the person in parental authority and the person in parental authority of the principal of the case as the claimant, and the other party files an appeal to request the transfer of the principal of the case as the person in parental authority and the person in parental authority as the claimant, in a case where the court examines the principal appeal and the person in parental authority together, and it is reasonable to accept the appeal, in a case where the court deems it reasonable to accept the appeal, it is reasonable to dismiss the appeal, in light of the general nature of the family non-litigation case dealing with the case under the objective discretion from the perspective of guardianship, and the characteristics of the family non-litigation case as to the disposition of bringing-up which takes priority into account

[1] Article 837 of the Civil Act, Article 62 of the Family Litigation Act / [2] Article 837 of the Civil Act, Article 19 (1) of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Act, Article 2 (1) 2 (b) 3 and Article 34 of the Family Litigation Act / [3] Article 837 of the Civil Act, Article 99 of the Family Litigation Rules, Article 99 of the

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Meu689 delivered on January 21, 1992 (Gong1992, 902) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Meu699 delivered on June 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 2036)

Claimant

Other party (Attorney No-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Principal of the case

Seoul Family Court Order 2004BB59, 60 dated January 13, 2005

All reappeals filed by the claimant and the other party are dismissed.

1. As to the grounds for re-appeal by the claimant (the counter-appellant; hereinafter referred to as the "applicant")

According to the records, it can be acknowledged that the claimant and the other party (hereinafter referred to as "the other party") have made an adjustment of the contents designated as the person with parental authority and the custodian of the principal of the case born between them as the other party on June 12, 1998. In such a case, unless the method of fostering under the adjustment clause is changed by any other agreement or trial, the applicant has no right to rear the principal of the case. Nevertheless, if the claimant voluntarily raises the principal of the case without being subject to prior disposition under Article 62 of the Family Litigation Act which temporarily changed the above adjustment clause from the court to a temporary measure, it is an illegal rearing in relation to the other party. Thus, it cannot be said that the other party is not obliged to pay the child support to the applicant (see Supreme Court Decision 91Meu689 delivered on January 21, 1992).

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the claim portion for the child support from the time the claimant voluntarily commenced the child support to the day the judgment of this case became final and conclusive without changing the above adjustment clause designated by the person with parental authority and the person with parental authority, and there is no violation of the Constitution, law, order or rule that affected the judgment.

2. As to the grounds for reappeal of the other party

It is possible to modify the matters necessary for fostering the family court's decision under the provisions of Article 837 (2) of the Civil Act after the original decision, as well as when there is a special change of circumstances after the original decision, and it is deemed that the original decision was unfair in light of the overall circumstances stipulated in the above legal provisions. Even in cases where the parties have determined the matters concerning the fostering of their children through conciliation and then requested a change of such matters to the family court, the family court may modify such matters at any time when it is deemed unfair in light of the circumstances stipulated in the above legal provisions, and it is not possible to change them only when there is a special change of circumstances after the formation of conciliation (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu699, Jun. 25, 1991, etc.). The change or designation of the person with parental authority and the person with custody of the principal of this case as the claimant is justifiable in light of the above legal principles, and the other party's ground of appeal for appeal that such change or designation is unlawful cannot be accepted.

Meanwhile, as in the case of this case, where the claimant who actually raises the principal of this case requests the replacement and designation of the person in parental authority and the person in parental authority of the principal of this case as the claimant, and the other party requests the return of the principal of this case as the claimant in the position of the person in parental authority and the person in parental authority, and the other party requests the return of the principal of this case as the claimant, in case where the court examines the principal appeal and the request for the return, and it is reasonable to accept the said request, in light of the general nature of the family non-litigation case dealing with the case at the same discretion from the guardian's perspective and the characteristics of the non-litigation case as to the disposition of bringing the "child's welfare" first priority, it is reasonable to dismiss the request for a return which is difficult to be compatible with the other party's request on the premise of a new legal relation to the disposition of bringing the case under priority. Thus,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all reappeals by petitioners and other parties are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)