Claimant

Other party (Attorney Su-ho et al.)

Principal of the case

Seoul Family Court Decision 2002Ra8323 dated July 1, 2004 (This Court Decision), 2003Ra290 (Rejudgments)

1. Of the original adjudication, the part against the other party ordering the payment of child support in excess of the amount recognized as follows, shall be revoked, and the main appeal filed by the claimant falling under this part shall be dismissed:

The other party (the other party) shall pay to the claimant 50,000 won each month from the day following the day when the judgment becomes final to December 27, 2016 to the child support of the principal of the case as the last day of each month.

2. The remaining appeal by the other party is dismissed;

3. The total costs of the adjudication shall be borne by the claimant (the other party to the adjudication) and the other party (the other party to the adjudication) respectively.

1. Purport of claim

In this trial, the person exercising parental authority and the person fostering the principal of the case shall be changed and designated as the claimant (only the other party to the trial, hereinafter referred to as the claimant). The other party (only the other party to the trial, hereinafter referred to as the "the other party") shall pay to the claimant the child support of the principal of the case at the rate of KRW 500,000 per month from December 199 to December 2016.

The claimant shall deliver the principal of the case to the other party. The claimant shall pay to the other party the money at the rate of 500,000 won per month from the day following the day when the judgment of this case becomes final to December 28, 2016 as child support of the principal of this case.

2. Purport of appeal;

The part against the other party in the original adjudication shall be revoked, and the same adjudication as the purport of the appeal shall be dismissed and the appeal for the principal of the claimant shall be dismissed.

1. Factual basis

The reason why the court's explanation on this part is the same as that of the original adjudication, thereby citing it as it is.

2. Determination

A. As to the claimant's request for designation of the parental authority holder and custodian and the other party's request for delivery of the child

The reason why this Court's explanation concerning this part is the same as that of the original adjudication, thereby citing it as it is, and adding the following parts to the end.

“The other party has designated the other party as the person exercising parental authority and the person fostering the principal of the case while divorced from the claimant in 198. The other party's forced transfer of the principal of the case against the other party's will and the claimant's request to change or designate the person exercising parental authority and the person fostering the principal of the case as the claimant at the time of divorce mediation clearly violates the agreement between the two parties at the time of divorce mediation. In light of the circumstances and the progress after the date of divorce mediation, there is no particular reason to change or designate the person exercising parental authority and the person fostering the principal of the case as the claimant, and it is contrary to the principle of equity to designate the person as the claimant.

B. As to the claimant's claim for child support

(1) Occurrence of liability for payment of child support

According to the above facts, the claimant, who is the father of the principal of the case, is obligated to pay part of the child support of the principal of the case.

As seen earlier, the claimant sought the payment of child support from December 12, 1999 to the date when the judgment becomes final and conclusive, and the fact that the other party had already brought up the principal of the case between the claimant and the other party, as seen earlier, the claimant does not have the right to bring up the principal of the case, and even if the method of bringing up the principal of the case is not modified by any other agreement or any judgment, if the claimant raises the principal of the case by himself, then the claimant is illegal bringing up the principal of the case, in relation to the other party, and thus, the other party cannot be deemed to have the obligation to pay the child support for illegal bringing up to the claimant until the new method of bringing up the principal of the case is determined in lieu of the above conciliation, so this part of the

(2) Amount of child support

Furthermore, in light of various circumstances, such as health stand, the age and present educational expenses of the principal of the case, the level of income of the claimant and the other party, property and living level, etc., regarding the amount of child support to be borne by the other party, it is reasonable to determine the child support to be borne by the other party by 500,000 won per month from the day following the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive until December 27, 2016, which is the day before the principal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the other party is obligated to pay 50,000 won each month to the last day of December from the day following the day when the judgment becomes final and conclusive to the child support of the principal of this case. Thus, the claimant's claim for the child support is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim and the counter-request of the other party are dismissed, without merit. As to the claimant's claim for the child support, it shall be decided as above. Since the part concerning the child support claim in the judgment of the original court is unfair as part of the other party's appeal, the part concerning the child support claim in the judgment of the original court is partially accepted, and the part concerning the child support claim in the judgment of the original court is revoked, and the part concerning the child support claim in excess of the above amount is revoked, and the part concerning the child support claim in the judgment of the original court is dismissed, and the remaining appeal

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)