Requirements for Declaration of Loss of Parental Authority

In order to recognize the existence of the cause of the loss of parental authority, only the fact that there is an act which appears to be a significant misconduct against the person with parental authority or an act which appears to be an abuse of parental authority is insufficient, and it does not reach the extent that the loss of parental authority by the person with parental authority for the welfare of the person with parental authority and the other person

Article 924 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 4291Nois811 Decided April 16, 1959 (Article 924(3)1568 of the Civil Code, Article 31-616 of the Civil Code)

Claimant

appellees

The claimant's claim is dismissed.

Trial costs shall be borne by the claimant.

As the primary claim, parental authority over 1 other than the respondent's claim (hereinafter the principal of this case) shall be lost.

The adjudication costs shall be borne by the respondent, and as a preliminary claim, the respondent's right to represent and manage the legal act and property of the principal of this case shall be lost.

The judgment on the costs of a trial shall be borne by the respondent.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 (each certified family register) and Gap evidence Nos. 2 (No. 2) without dispute in its establishment, the defendant married to the non-party No. 2 and the above deceased on Oct. 2, 1980. The deceased died on Oct. 9, 1987, and the principal of this case was born on May 3, 1980 from his husband and wife, and the claimant can recognize the fact that he is a punishment of the above deceased, and there is no counter-proof.

The claimant asserts that when the respondent entered into a relationship with the plaintiff 3 after the death of the deceased, he did not leave the plaintiff to the non-party 4, who is the plaintiff's representative, and then lived with the non-party 3, the claimant should first claim that the plaintiff should be declared the loss of parental authority because he had the plaintiff living together with the above non-party 3, and there is a serious reason for not allowing the plaintiff to abuse parental authority or exercise significant misconduct or other parental authority as his mother, and even if not, the above reason is the case where the person with parental authority's improper management would endanger the plaintiff's property. Thus, the claimant asserts that the plaintiff's preliminary claim should be made that the loss of parental authority and the right to manage property should be declared.

If the claimant's primary claim and conjunctive claim were examined together, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 8-2, Gap evidence 6 (certificate), Gap evidence 7-1, 2 (certificate of no local tax assessment), Eul evidence 9-2, and Eul evidence 5, 6, 7, and 8's testimony respectively, and if the defendant died on October 9, 1987 with the defendant's primary claim and conjunctive claim, the defendant did not use the above defendant's property for the above defendant's daily life from 0.12 days of the same year to 30 days of the above defendant's death, and the defendant did not use the defendant's property for the above non-party 3 and the defendant's non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 8's non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 3 and the defendant's non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 1 and the above non-party 1 and the defendant 38.

However, the defendant's waste of his own property constitutes a cause not to exercise parental authority or a cause not to endanger one's own property due to improper management by the person with parental authority. On the other hand, as shown in the above facts of recognition, the defendant's relation to the above non-party 3 of the defendant's claim is a significant misconduct that adversely affects the principal of this case, and even if the defendant's living living together with the above non-party 3 of this case constitutes abuse of parental authority's right to designate the person with parental authority, even if the cause of loss of parental authority had already ceased to exist before the closing of argument, if the cause of loss of parental authority had already ceased to exist and there is no such cause, the defendant cannot lose parental authority. Thus, if the defendant's testimony of non-party 4 of the witness's claim and the fact that the defendant settled living together with the above non-party 3 of this claim and lives together with the above non-party 3 of this case, it can be acknowledged that the defendant had already been extinguished and it cannot be reported to the loss of parental authority.

Furthermore, it is insufficient to recognize that there is an act of using parental authority or an abuse of parental authority by a person with parental authority on behalf of the person with parental authority. It should also be applied to a declaration of loss of parental authority and the right to manage property of the person with parental authority. The above evidence No. 9, No. 8-1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 5, No. 6 (Listing), and No. 11, No. 12 (O), and No. 12 (O.), and No. 5 of the respondent's own right to care of the person with parental authority over the above person without parental authority over the above person's own right to care of the person with parental authority over the above person's own property of this case. The respondent's own right to care of the person with parental authority over the above person's own property of this case could not be seen as being more favorable than the plaintiff's own right to care of the person with parental authority over the above person's property of this case.

Therefore, all of the conjunctive appeals filed by the claimant seeking the adjudication on the loss of parental authority over the principal of this case and the adjudication on the loss of parental authority and the right to manage property of this case are dismissed, and the adjudication costs are assessed as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party.

Administrative Patent Judges Doctrine (Presiding Judge)