2019 Dives 201690 Child support

A

Section B.

C

November 4, 2020

1.The other party shall be the claimant;

A. Payment of 80 million won with child support in the past of the principal of the case and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when the judgment of this case is finalized to the day of complete payment;

B. From January 2020 to the day before the principal of the case reaches the age of majority, the principal shall pay one million won per month as the last day of each month.

2. The cost of a trial shall be borne by each person.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The other party shall pay 84.5 million won to the claimant, the child support of the principal of this case, and 12% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the written appeal of this case to the day of complete payment. The other party shall pay 1.5 million won per month from December 1, 2019 to February 1, 2026 as the last day of each month.

1. Facts of recognition;

In full view of the overall purport of the records and examination of the case, the claimant and the other party shall report the marriage on 2001 and have the principal of the case under the chain, the two persons shall be married on 2005, and the consultation was made on 2005, and the claimant was appointed as the person with parental authority and the custodian of the case, but there was no separate determination as to the child support, and the claimant may recognize the fact of bringing the principal

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, the other party is obligated to share the past child support and future child support for the principal of the case as the mother of the principal of the case.

B. Determination on the other party’s assertion

1) The other party's assertion

As the other party has paid the child support of KRW 100,00,000 to the claimant at the time of the divorce, the other party shall not be obliged to pay the child support more than 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the other party. ② The other party does not have any visitation right until the other party becomes adult, the claimant does not have any visitation right, the other party does not have any contact, and the other party does not have any relation to the other party, and the claimant does not have any relation to the other party, and the other party does not have any relation to the other party, and the claimant has filed a claim for the child support of KRW 50,000,00,000,00 in violation of the principle of good faith, even though the claimant did not claim the child support for KRW 15,000,00,000,000,000,00,000.

(ii) the board;

① According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3 (Written Evidence), the other party becomes aware of the fact that she was accommodated in the upper male and her mother on October 2005, under the title of "written statement" by "the other party". The other party promises to provide a full amount of 35 million won for the deposit for mental damage guarantee and consolation money, the transfer of the name of the vehicle (acquisition value of 25 million won) and 40 million won for the principal's repayment and payment of the deposit for mental damage guarantee and consolation money (the other party's name on October 31, 2005). It can be recognized the fact that the other party signed and sealed the unmanned letter with "the other party's name on October 31, 2005". According to the above facts of recognition, the other party merely paid the above amount as consolation money to the claimant at the time of the divorce, and it cannot be deemed that it was paid as a child support.

In regard to this, the other party prepared a written statement as the claimant did not appear by intimidation of the claimant, and the other party asked the other party's son's son's son's son's son's own son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son'

Meanwhile, the other party asserts to the effect that the payment of KRW 100 million to the claimant is merely an excessive amount to recognize the payment of consolation money pursuant to the above written statement. However, in full view of the overall purport of the entries and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 3, 6, 2, and 12 of the above evidence, the other party was granted a loan of KRW 4,5 million to the other party, and leased a new house of KRW 75,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and the other party cannot be deemed to have paid KRW 2,500,000,000 to the other party to the above written statement of KRW 4,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 won to the other party to the claim of KRW 2,500,000,000,000,000 won to the above written statement.

According to the overall purport of the inquiry, reply, and examination with respect to the law firm as of July 1, 2020, the claimant and the other party may recognize the fact that a notarial deed concerning the agreement was prepared by the law firm as of February 10, 2006, and that the above notarial deed does not exist at present. The above notarial deed alone is insufficient to deem the claimant to have renounced the other party's right to claim the payment of the child to the other party, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Furthermore, according to the above facts established as of February 10, 2006, the notarial deed was prepared between the two parties on the same day when the other party paid the agreed amount of KRW 25 million to the claimant as of February 10, 2006. However, since the child support has a significant impact on the welfare of the child, it cannot be easily recognized that the waiver of the right to claim the child support was stated in the notarial deed as to the waiver of the child support, and thus, it cannot be inferred to the purport of the agreement concerning the child support under 187.

(3) Matters concerning the bringing-up of a child, such as child support, etc. as seen earlier, shall undermine the welfare of the child

If necessary, it may be re-determined at any time, and the other party bears the obligation to pay the child support as a matter of course as the mother of the principal of this case. Although the claimant is expected not to claim the child support for 15 years in the future, it cannot be said that there is a value to be legitimate expectation or legal protection. The other party’s assertion on the principle of invalidation is without merit.

④ The payment of child support for a non-child and the payment of the child support may not be deemed to be in a quid pro quo or simultaneous performance relationship. A non-child care provider bears the obligation to pay the child support to the child for the purpose of the growth and development of the child regardless of whether the visitation right is implemented. Moreover, if the other party wants to do so, the other party did not make any effort or take any measure to accept the principal of the case for a long time, notwithstanding the fact that the other party was able to consult with the claimant or to request visitation right when it is impossible to reach the principal of the case, but the other party failed to exercise the visitation right. As such, even if the other party neglects to exercise the visitation right, the other party’s liability for the payment of the child support is avoided. The other party’s assertion as to the amount of

In light of all the circumstances revealed in the examination of this case, including the fact that the applicant has raised the principal of this case for about 15 years, the claimant operated the restaurant, but the applicant has operated the restaurant, and there has been the enemy monthly, and the other party works as the deputy head of the bank and has considerable income, and the age and status of custody of the principal of this case, it is reasonable to determine the child support to be borne by the other party as KRW 80 million, and the future child support of the principal of this case from January 2020 to the day before the principal of this case reaches the age of majority.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the court shall judge the claim of this case as above as above. November 4, 2020

Judges Don-Support

1) The other party has been loaned 40 million won as business fund of the claimant, not in the name of the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis, and the other party has been given a loan.

The bank alleged that it made a separate reimbursement after divorce, but according to the evidence Nos. 2 and 12, the bank is scheduled to marry.

It can be recognized that the other party granted a loan of KRW 40 million to the opposite party in order to support the lease deposit.

The argument is without merit. If the claimant's business funds are not the payment of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit,

If used for the purpose, it cannot be deemed that the other party received a loan from the bank by deceiving the purpose of use.

(c)

2) The claimant asserts that at the time the market price of an automobile was 8 million won or less.