2012BB26 Direct payment of child support

Reference (xxxx -xxx) to be included in clause (xxx); and

Simyang-si 00 apartment units 00-dong 00, Seosan-gu 00-dong 000 - Dog-dong

NewO4 (xxx -xxx xx)

Seoul Gwanak-gu -

♤☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ 주식회사

Silwon-si 00-dong, Silwon-si (place of business):

Maximum representative director

Seoul Family Court Order 2012 businesszho50 dated January 16, 2012

June 11, 2012

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked.

The motion of this case is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

According to the records of this case, the judgment rendered on August 31, 2010 in Suwon District Court 2009Reu1813 (principal lawsuit), and 2010Reuu1086 (Counterclaim) between the creditor and the debtor is based on the records of this case. The judgment rendered on August 31, 2010 is as follows: the debtor's child support amounting to one million won per month from the day after the judgment became final and conclusive to October 23, 2020, and the next day to that effect.

11. By December 21, 200, the monthly payment of KRW 500,000 shall be made by the obligee, and the obligee ordered the obligor to pay KRW 80,000 as division of property. The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 14, 2010, and the obligee applied for an order to pay the child support of this case with the claim for the child support of the aforementioned final and conclusive judgment as the title of execution.

6. Any fact that accepts a decision of the first instance, may be recognized; and

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The debtor had sold the property of the creditor to receive the money for division of property by the above final judgment, and withdrawn an auction after hearing the statement that he would not receive the child support if he withdraws the auction from the creditor. However, the debtor thereafter sold the property subject to the above auction, and asserts to the effect that there is a justifiable reason that the debtor would not pay the child support.

3. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the records and purport of the examination of this case, the obligor paid the child support prescribed by the aforementioned final judgment to the obligee until February 201. The obligor applied for a compulsory sale of the apartment △△△△△△△ apartment 00 apartment - the obligee did not receive the above compulsory sale of 10 years after the obligor filed an application for the said compulsory sale on March 2, 201, and on February 25, 201, the obligee did not receive the above compulsory sale of 10 years for the first time after the obligor filed an application for the above compulsory sale of the child support, and the obligor did not receive the aforementioned compulsory sale of 10 years old mobile phone text messages to the effect that it would be up to 10 years old, and 10 years old, 20 years old, 10 years old, 20 years old, 20 years old, 10 years old, 20 years old, 10 years old, 20 years old, 14 years old, 201.

In full view of the above facts, the obligee expressed his/her intent of offsetting a child support claim against the obligor, with the obligor’s claim for division of property against the obligee as a passive claim, and with the obligor’s claim for division of property against the obligee, and the obligor renounced and consented thereto. Thus, the child support claim under the above final judgment was extinguished for 80 months from March 201, which is within the scope of equal amount with the claim for division of property, within the scope of the amount of the claim for division of property, and 80 months from March 201. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the obligor did not pay the child support more than twice even until the date of this decision. Thus, the instant application

In addition, when a creditor withdraws an apartment owned by the creditor to a compulsory auction, the creditor has trusted that the debtor would not be paid a child support equivalent to the amount of the money for division of property and the child support by expressing his/her intent not to receive the child support by offsetting it against the division of property and the child support, and had the trusted debtor withdraw a compulsory auction of the claim for division of property, and further, in full view of the circumstances where the creditor would actually impossible the exercise of the debtor's right by selling the above apartment, which is the execution property, when the debtor trusted and withdraws a compulsory auction, and when the creditor withdraws a compulsory auction, the creditor would not be allowed to exercise only his/her own speech and behavior and the obligation to the debtor and exercise the child support claim, which is his/her right. Accordingly, it is difficult for the creditor to have justifiable grounds under Article 63-2 (1) of the Family Litigation Act to refuse to pay the child support after March 201.

Therefore, an application for direct payment order for the child support of this case does not meet the requirements under Article 63-2(1) of the Family Litigation Act and cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the application of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the decision of the first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the appeal of the debtor shall be accepted, and the decision of the first instance shall be revoked and the application of this case shall be dismissed as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, assistant judge and assistant judge

Effect of judge appointment;

Judges Kim Gin-jin