In a case where a claim for loss of parental authority is filed pursuant to Article 924(1) of the Civil Act, and a family court does not fall under the grounds for loss of parental authority by taking into account the criteria for determination under Article 925-2 of the Civil Act, but it is deemed necessary to limit part of parental authority for the welfare of a child, whether the restriction of parental authority may be imposed without being bound by the

In addition to the adjudication on the loss of parental authority at the time of the amendment of the Civil Act by Act No. 12777 on October 15, 2014, the Civil Act newly established the provision that the court may decide on the loss of parental authority (Article 924) and the partial restriction of parental authority (Article 924-2), and newly established the standard for determining the loss of parental authority (Article 925-2).

Article 93(e) of the Family Litigation Rule provides that a family court may adjudicate on a non-contentious family non-litigation case of Category E, which is the subject of the claim, in the most reasonable way (Paragraph 1), and that a claim seeking a payment of money, delivery of goods or other performance of property obligation cannot be ordered to perform the obligation in excess of the purport of the claim, but it does not provide for matters concerning bringing up for the welfare of the child (Paragraph 2).

In light of the aforementioned provisions, even in cases of loss of parental authority or limitation thereof, as in cases of child care for the welfare of a child, the Family Court shall be deemed permitted to form a legal relationship between the parties at a broad discretion and order the performance thereof from a guardian’s perspective, and shall not be strictly bound by the purport of the purport of the parties. Therefore, in cases where a claim for loss of parental authority is filed pursuant to Article 924(1) of the Civil Act, the Family Court shall not constitute grounds for loss of parental authority, taking into account the criteria for determination under Article 925-2 of the Civil Act, but may impose some restrictions on parental authority without being bound by the purport of the claim

Articles 924, 924-2, and 925-2 of the Civil Act; Article 93 of the Rules of Family Litigation

Claimant (Attorney Kim Yong-sik, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Other party (Attorney Park Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Principal of the case

Daejeon High Court Order 2017BB306 dated January 17, 2018

All reappeals are dismissed. The costs of reappeals are assessed against each party.

The grounds of reappeal of the claimant and the other party are also examined.

1. The Civil Act only has a provision that the court may declare the loss of parental authority when there was a serious reason, such as abuse of parental authority (Article 924), but also newly established a provision that in addition to the adjudication of the loss of parental authority at the time of the amendment of the Civil Act by Act No. 12777 on October 15, 2014, the Civil Act may impose a temporary suspension of parental authority (Article 924) and a partial restriction of parental authority (Article 924-2) (Article 925-2) and newly established a standard for determination such as the adjudication of the loss of parental authority (Article 925-2).

Article 93(e) of the Family Litigation Rule provides that a family court may adjudicate on a non-contentious family non-litigation case of Category E, which is the subject of the claim, in the most reasonable way (Paragraph 1), and that a claim seeking a payment of money, delivery of goods or other performance of property obligation cannot be ordered to perform the obligation in excess of the purport of the claim, but it does not provide for matters concerning bringing up for the welfare of the child (Paragraph 2).

In light of the aforementioned provisions, even in cases of loss of parental authority or limitation thereof, as in cases of child care for the welfare of a child, the Family Court shall be deemed permitted to form a legal relationship between the parties at a broad discretion and order the performance thereof from a guardian’s perspective, and shall not be strictly bound by the purport of the purport of the parties. Therefore, in cases where a claim for loss of parental authority is filed pursuant to Article 924(1) of the Civil Act, the Family Court shall not constitute grounds for loss of parental authority, taking into account the criteria for determination under Article 925-2 of the Civil Act, but may impose some restrictions on parental authority without being bound by the purport of the claim

2. A. The lower court rendered a decision to restrict the other party’s parental authority over the following grounds in this case where the claimant (the case principal’s external assistance) demanded the loss of parental authority of the other party, who is a person with parental authority.

(1) If it is difficult or inappropriate for a person with parental authority to exercise parental authority, but it is difficult to regard it as a ground for loss of parental authority, it may be sentenced to partial restriction of parental authority instead of loss of parental authority.

(2) It is difficult to view that there is a cause for loss of parental authority, such as the absence of a state in which the principal of the case is not protected, and the other party has consistently clarified the intention of rearing without waiver of authority and duty as a person with parental authority over the principal of the case, and there is no personal nature that may obstruct the exercise of parental authority.

(3) However, considering that the principal of the case shows a serious refusal against the other party, and such situation continues for a considerable period of time, it is reasonable to restrict the other party’s right to foster the principal of the case directly by exercising his/her full parental authority, as it might seriously undermine the welfare of the principal of the case.

B. In light of the above legal principles, the lower court’s determination is acceptable. In so determining, it did not err by misapprehending the provisions of Articles 924-2 and 925-2 of the Civil Act, as alleged by the claimant and the other party.

3. The reappeals by the appellant and the other party are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)