(영문) 부산가정법원 2018.11.8.선고 2018르20808 판결

3. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) pays 1,000,000 won monthly to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) for the child support of the principal of the instant case from November 9, 2018 to September 2, 203, respectively, on the last day of each month.

4. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) may visitation the principal of the case from November 9, 2018 to September 2, 203, 203 as follows:

(a) schedule;

1) Before the principal of the case enters an elementary school

A) From November 17, 2018, Saturdays and Sundays 10 to 19:0:00 on Sundays 17, respectively.

(b) Oil and winter vacations: Two-day days each during a vacation (specific schedule shall be determined through mutual consultation) for two-days each during a vacation period;

2) From September 2, 203, the principal of this case entered an elementary school until September 2, 2033

(A) First, from 10th Saturday to 19th Sundays (12th day);

(b) Oil and winter vacations: Not later than 7 hours of 600 each (specific schedule shall be determined through mutual consultation);

(c) New Year’s Day and New Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Day and Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Day;

(b) Place: The place that is designated by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant): The method by which the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) takes the principal of the case in a safe and appropriate manner and takes the visitation right to the said place;

D. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) may change the schedule, place, and method of the visitation right by prior consultation.

E. The Defendant (Counterclaim) shall actively cooperate with the above visitation right, and shall not interfere with it, and shall cooperate with the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to the maximum extent possible if there is a request for additional visitation right.

5. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s remaining appeal is dismissed.

6. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

7. Paragraph 3 can be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim and appeal

[ claim: The person in parental authority and the custodian of the principal of the case shall be designated as the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”). The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”) shall pay KRW 90,000 per month to the Plaintiff as the child support of the principal of the case, from September 2, 203 of the first instance judgment to September 2, 203.

Counterclaim: Paragraph (2) of this Article and the plaintiff pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 1 million per month from September 2, 203 from the date when the first instance judgment was rendered to the defendant as the child support of the principal of this case.

[Purpose of appeal] The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the judgment as stated in the purport of the counterclaim shall be sought.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

The court's explanation on this part is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main text of Article 12 of the Family Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. Parental authority, including custody of a minor, is the parent’s right and duty, which directly affects the welfare of the minor, and thus, in determining who is a minor’s parent’s parental authority and a custodian when the parents divorce, the parental authority should be determined in a way that is most helpful and appropriate for the growth and welfare of the minor, by comprehensively taking into account all the factors such as the minor’s sex and age, parents’ patriotism and intent to rear the minor, as well as the existence of economic capacity necessary for fostering, social density between the father or mother and the minor, and the minor’s intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Meu380, May 8, 2008; 2009Meu1458, 1465, May 13, 2010).

Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have a firm spirit and intent to foster the principal of the case, and the emotional ties with the principal of the case seems to be significant. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are engaged in each professional position, and obtain revenues of more than 600 to 7 million won per month, and the environment of fostering is also excellent, such as a relatively free and free time utilization and assistance from the parents. There seems to be no problem of the nature or mental disorder that the Plaintiff concerns, and there is no serious stress that the Defendant received in the course of pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting of the principal of the case. However, it is true that there was a conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. However, it is difficult to view the materials submitted up to the present to the extent that the Defendant did not have any apparent difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to put up the principal of the case in custody, and that there is no significant difference between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to put up the principal of the case in custody, and that there is no sufficient circumstance to support the principal of the case in the direction of fostering the principal of the case.

Considering these circumstances, in order to justify the designation of the plaintiff as the person in parental authority and the person in parental authority over the principal of this case by changing the current state of fostering, it is clear that such change will be more helpful to the sound growth and welfare of the principal of this case than to maintain the current state of fostering. The principal of this case is more than 4 years and 2 months. The principal of this case has been fostering and examining the principal of this case from November 2015 to the present three years without any special problems. The defendant's parent and the person in this case seems to have a significant relationship with the principal of this case, and the principal of this case is currently residing in Seoul and going to a kindergarten. When the principal of this case is changed to the plaintiff, the principal of this case is expected to move his domicile to the child of the plaintiff's workplace, and it is difficult to deem that there is any circumstance to change the state of fostering the principal of this case only with the materials submitted to the present.

In addition, since the plaintiff's parents reside in Seoul, the plaintiff seems to be able to conduct the visitation right in Seoul in a stable way with the principal of the case, and then the person with parental authority and the custodian should be replaced by considering the progress of the visitation right, the age and psychological status of the principal of the case, the intention

Considering that there is room for room, the defendant shall be designated as a person with parental authority or parenting of the principal of the case.

(b) Child support;

The plaintiff is the father of the principal of the case and is responsible for fostering the principal of the case together with the defendant, and therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the child support for the principal of the case to the defendant. The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 1,00,000 won per month from the day after the date of this decision to the day before the principal of the case reaches adult age

[Ground for determination] Taking into account the following factors: (a) the age and parenting status of the principal of the case; (b) the age, occupation and income, property, and livelihood of the Plaintiff and the Defendant; (c) intent of the parties concerned; and (d) the Plaintiff appears to have paid considerable expenses for visitation rights to the principal of the case, insofar as the Plaintiff is not contrary to the welfare of the principal of the case; (b) the Plaintiff, a non-child-child relationship, has the right to visitation rights, so long as such visitation rights do not conflict with the welfare of the principal of the case, the Plaintiff’s age, parenting status, living environment; (c) the intention of the parties concerned; and (d) the date, method

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in accordance with this conclusion, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.