209B000 Interview Rights

71 Women of 190

A male who has been born for 70 years.

03 Womens of 03

Seoul Family Court Order 2009 Madern** Judgment * on September 28, 2009

July 13, 2010

1.The adjudication of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

A. The claimant may, from November 1, 2010, hold an interview to the principal of the case at a place where the claimant may be held responsible as follows: (1) Second, each month; (4) from the 4 p.m. on Saturdays to the 4 p.m. on the following day: (2) during the summer and winter vacation, each seven days during the summer and winter vacation.

(b) The visitation right shall commence, at the time of commencement of the visitation right, by means that the claimant takes care of the principal of the case in the domicile of the other party and concludes the visitation right, he/she takes care of the principal of the case in the domicile of the other party: Provided, That where medical treatment of the principal of the case is provided on the visitation right date, the visitation right may be transferred to the principal of the case in the hospital, and 24 hours from that time.

(c) The other party shall cooperate with the claimant and the principal of the case so that the visitation right can only be achieved, and shall not commit any act interfering with it.

2. The total expenses of an adjudication shall be borne individually by each person;

1. Purport of request;

(1) The claimant shall visit the principal of the case at the following schedule: (1) The second, each month:

Fourth, from 4 p.m. on Saturdays to 4 p.m. on the following day.

After entry into the court, the second part of the week beginning on the summer and wintering science.

(2) The other party shall participate in the visitation at the address of the claimant for a period of seven days until ter or Sundays.

It shall cooperate in the smooth exercise of visitation rights, and shall not interfere with them.

(3) The other party shall have the letter, goods, etc. sent by the claimant to the principal of the case.

must be delivered.

2. Purport of appeal;

The adjudication of the first instance court shall be revoked, and a new trial shall be sought.

1. Basic facts

In full view of the overall purport of the records, the following facts may be acknowledged.

A. On November 4, 1998, the petitioner and the other party married to the principal of the case on May 4, 2003, and the agreement was married on August 21, 2006. At the time of the agreement divorce, the applicant is the person with parental authority and the custodian of the principal of the case as the other party. At the time of agreement divorce, the claimant is entitled to interview the principal of the case at least twice a month, but has given prior notice to the other party. After that, the other party is married to A on or around October 2008 and then (the report of marriage is around May 2009) refer to the principal of the case as the other party.

B. However, the claimant, who did not properly exercise the visitation right due to the other party's non-Cooperation, found the child-care center accompanying the principal of the case in the future by the other party and sent the principal of the case to the other party, and there is a conflict again with the other party to whom he became aware of. The other party thereafter becomes aware of the conflict.

3. On July 2009, the applicant was moving the principal of this case to the English kindergarten, and the applicant found the principal of this case as the English kindergarten and divided the principal of this case into Mana. On July 2009, the principal of this case was found to return to the house and found Manama. On July 21, 2009, the applicant requested the interview right permission of this case on July 21, 2009, while the applicant knew of this fact and attempted to capture the principal of this case, the applicant requested the interview right of this case on July 21, 2009. Second, the first instance court tried to grant the interview from 00:00 to 16:00 on the following day, and from August 1, 2010 to August 7 each year.

C. The principal of this case was admitted to an elementary school in this year, but is still in a remote state of recognition function or emotional stability due to the consistent rearing environment after divorce, etc., and is being treated with the ○○ mental department located in Seoul 00 dong-gu due to symptoms such as a pety disorder and emotional disorder from October 16, 2009.

2. Determination

A. The assertion on the limitation of visitation right

In the case of divorce between husband and wife, the parent who does not directly raise his or her child shall have the visitation right: Provided, That the visitation right may be restricted or excluded only when it is necessary for the welfare of his or her child, and the claimant shall also have the visitation right to the principal of the case, barring special circumstances. Accordingly, the other party asserts to the purport that the visitation right should be excluded or restricted for the legitimate growth of the principal of the case, inasmuch as the principal of the case only applied for visitation right for the purpose of informing his or her existence, and the principal of the case shows symptoms such as decline in the recognition function and the settlement of sentiments, and it is not prepared to accept the existence of the claimant because he or she knows A as his or her mother.

B. Determination

(1) According to the record of this case’s recognition of visitation right and the above facts, it was difficult for the principal at the time of the divorce to recognize the existence of friendship because he was merely three years of age at the time of the divorce, and the applicant entered into a new attachment relationship with the newly born her mother around five years of age. After that, the applicant entered the instant principal as a house or kindergarten her mother or kindergarten her mother, and the principal in this case was suffering from confusion. The principal of this case was unable to establish a stable attachment relationship with his parent by failing to properly look at the principal of this case in the course of divorce and marriage, and due to the other party’s failure to establish a stable attachment relationship with his parent. In this situation, the applicant is also a child-friendly applicant.

It is recognized that the case principal is more likely to cause confusion among three people.

However, according to the records, it seems that the relationship with the father of this case has not been formed properly due to the divorce of the father of this case, and since October 2009, the treatment of the principal of this case is being conducted. The other party and the mother of this case actively cooperate in the treatment process of the principal of this case, such as taking counseling three to four times by the doctor in charge, and the other party and the other party have been continuously receiving counseling at the home support center of this case, and the preparation for interview negotiation has been actually conducted through the preparation of the interview negotiation, such as taking care of the desire and appraisal of the patient of this case (the claimant of this case has been consulted six times and two other parties have been consulted). The principal of this case has been under continuous treatment due to the paralysis disorder and emotional disability and need for continuous treatment, and it is unreasonable that the other party of this case has not reached the preparation process for the woman of this case.

In addition to these circumstances, considering the fact that the claimant, as a mother of the principal of the case, has the visitation right as a matter of course, and that the role of all parents is very important for the proper growth of the principal of the case, the above alleged facts of the other party cannot be deemed to have a reason to exclude or restrict the visitation right. Therefore, the claimant has the visitation right to the principal of the case, but it is sufficient that the time of commencement should be delayed in light of the situation of the principal of the case. Accordingly, the time of commencement of the visitation right may be examined below. (2) There may be confusion in recognizing the existence of the biological mother because the principal of the case was unable to reach the claimant for a considerable period of time, and since the principal of the case is under medical treatment due to symptoms, such as a difficult disability, it is reasonable to start the visitation right, taking into account that the preparation period of two to three months is necessary to start the visitation right, and that the new A's delivery scheduled date is in order to start the visitation right is in the first order of November 2010.

However, even if visitation rights commence, it is highly likely that the applicant and the other party would have adverse impact on the principal of the case if they are not actively in cooperation with the applicant and the other party, and in particular, if they look at even between the parents who reflect the principal of the case, they shall not be free from their responsibility. Thus, in order for both the claimant and the other party to properly grow up to the principal of the case, it is very important that parents cooperate with each other with their interest and care. Therefore, the claimant and the other party must always take care of the principal of the case in accordance with the program set out in the ○○ Mental and Hospital (the hospital to which they move, if they move to the hospital) and the preparation for the visitation right of the applicant and the other party of the case. In particular, as seen above, the other party has neglected consultation at the Family Support Center as seen above, it is necessary to emphasize that they have faithfully obtained counseling procedures to maintain the relationship with the applicant and to resolve their emotional issues.

Considering these circumstances comprehensively, it is reasonable for the claimant to have the interview right to the principal of this case from November 1, 2010 to 4 p.m. on the fourth Saturday to 4 p.m. on the following day, and to determine the interview right to the principal of this case during the summer and winter vacation, respectively, for the welfare of the principal of this case. Provided, That if the principal of this case becomes hospital in the Saturdays, it would be necessary to adjust the time of the interview right through mutual consultation by starting the interview right from the time of treatment to the time of completion.

3. Conclusion

If so, the visitation right of the claimant shall be determined as such, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be unfair in conclusion, so it shall be accepted in part as to the other party's appeal and shall be modified as ordered.

July 13, 2010

The presiding judge shall hold a road inside the board of directors;

Madden Madul

Justices Shin Shin-young