[1] The elements to be considered in determining who is a minor child among parents when parents divorce

[2] The case holding that the court below's measure which designated Gap and Eul as a joint rearer of Gap and Eul who are minors Eul and ordered Gap to directly rear Byung et al. on the weekends of Eul and Eul is not sufficient to be deemed as being most helpful for the growth and welfare of their children and appropriate for Gap's welfare

[1] Article 837 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 837 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Meu380 Decided May 8, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2009Meu1458, 1465 Decided May 13, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 1147), Supreme Court Decision 201Meu4665 Decided April 13, 2012

Plaintiff (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Park Jong-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Han-ro, Attorneys Lee Dong-type et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1 other than raw milk forest, etc.

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Reu214-1, 2151-1 decided July 4, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, hereinafter “Defendant”) are examined together.

The parent’s right and duty to rear a minor, which directly affects the welfare of the minor, as the parent’s right and duty to protect the minor. Accordingly, when the parents divorce a minor, the determination must be made in the direction that is most helpful and appropriate for the growth and welfare of the minor, by comprehensively taking into account all the elements such as the sex, age, parents’ difficulty and intent to rear the minor, as well as the economic ability necessary for fostering, the feasibility and rationality of the method of fostering the minor, the possibility of harmonization between the father and the mother’s right to provide, the degree of friendship between the father and the minor, and the minor’s intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Meu380, May 8, 2008; 201Meu465, Apr. 13, 2012).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below determined that (1) if the plaintiff designates the plaintiff and the defendant as a joint breeder and directly raises the principal of the case on the weekends, it has advantages such as minimizing the negative impacts or disadvantages that may arise in the event of designating the principal of the case as a sole rearer, and that the negative impacts that may arise in the case of designating the joint rearer, in light of the nature of the principal and the defendant's residence, the distance between the principal and the defendant's residence, the possibility of preventing the discontinuation of the exclusive rearer by the continuous opinion assistance rate, etc., if one of the parties is designated as a sole rearer, it appears to be relatively less than those of the negative impacts or problems that may arise in the case of being designated as a sole rearer.

However, even if examining the facts established by the court below in light of the above legal principles and the records of this case, there are significant differences between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the method of fostering the principals of this case, and there is no possibility that the agreement of the principal of this case with respect to the method of fostering the principals of this case would be achieved in the near future by coordinating the opinions of both parties in the near future, and it would be difficult for the court below to realize the same as intended by the court below, because it could not be easy for the court below, although the court below classified them as the principal and the assistant, and considering the serious dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant who is expected when the plaintiff and the defendant want to raise the principal of this case on the basis of different methods and values, it is not sufficient to deem the above designation of the joint rearinger of this case as being the most helpful for the growth and welfare of the principal of this case in this case, and accordingly, mental confusion or conflict that may be caused to the principal of

Nevertheless, solely based on its stated reasoning, the lower court, solely on the grounds as indicated in its holding, designated the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the joint custodian and determined the method of joint rearing. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the designation of the custodian, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)