2007dward45701 Divorce

○○○ (*************************))

Address

Place of service

Reference domicile

Kim Jong-ri (************************))

2. Address;

Reference domicile

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

D (**************************))

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

Principal Address of the case

Original domicile of the principal of the case

January 18, 2008

February 1, 2008

1. The plaintiff and the defendant are divorced.

2. The plaintiff and the defendant shall be jointly designated as a person with parental authority and care of the principal of the case.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The person with parental authority and the custodian of the principal of the case shall be designated as the plaintiff in Paragraph 1 of this Article.

1. Basic facts

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number), the plaintiff and the defendant are legally married on March 20, 201 and have the principal of the case as their children. The plaintiff and the defendant sent the principal of the case to her son due to economic difficulties, and they reached a separate stop. The principal of the case is currently in the child protection facility where the principal of the case is currently in the current address (if the principal of the case Kim Malon seems to have been transferred to the facility where rehabilitation treatment is possible because one bridge is cut due to cerebrle disease). The plaintiff and the defendant visited the principal of the case by visiting the above facility at either the same time or at each time. On the other, it is recognized that the plaintiff was an employee on January 16, 2007, and on what day the defendant is currently working.

2. Determination.

A. According to the above facts of recognition of the claim for divorce, it seems difficult to continue the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant. This constitutes a ground for judicial divorce under Article 840 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is justified.

B. Although the designation of a person with parental authority and a custodian is requested for the designation of the plaintiff as the person with parental authority and the custodian of the case, the person with parental authority and the custodian of the case, and the age and custody of the person with parental authority and the custodian of the case, the plaintiff claims for the designation of the plaintiff as the person with parental authority and the custodian of the person with parental authority and the custodian of the case, it is thought that the person with parental authority and the custodian of the case will bear responsibility for fostering the principal of the case due to economic difficulties. In particular, the person with parental authority

In light of the fact that there is no circumstance that one person is expected to take care of the principal of the case and take care of him within the near city, there is no change in the existing custody situation even after the divorce between the plaintiff and the defendant, and when considering various circumstances, such as the fact that both the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant need to take a minimum objection as a parent, such as visiting the principal of the case on a more continuous and regular basis and confirming the situation of fostering, etc., it is reasonable to designate the plaintiff and the defendant as a joint person of parental authority and the custodian of the principal of the case, once all, for the purpose of the growth and welfare of the principal of the case ( ultimately, it is possible to complete the current situation where the principal of the case is moving to a child protection facility and directly rear the principal of the case, so that the plaintiff or the defendant may directly rear the principal of the case, and if necessary, it is possible to complete the joint parental authority and the state of fostering through consultation or a court trial, and convert the case into a single parental authority

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for divorce is accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition as to the person with parental authority and custody of the principal of the case.

Judges Choi Jong-man