In a case where a female female Gap gives birth to a female male Eul and sick in the Philippines, and sought recognition and designation of the exerciser of parental authority against Eul, the case holding that Eul is obligated to recognize Byung as a natural parent, Byung is appropriate to designate Byung as a person with parental authority and guardian of Byung, and Eul is obligated to share the child support until Byung attains the age of majority.

In a case where a female female Gap given birth to a female male Eul and Byung in the Philippines, and sought recognition of Byung and designation of the person exercising parental authority against Eul, etc. against Eul, Byung was obligated to recognize Byung as the natural father of Eul, Byung was obligated to recognize Byung as the natural father of Eul, and Eul was suitable for Byung's growth and welfare, and Gap's designation as the person with parental authority and the person with parental authority was appropriate for Byung's growth and welfare, and as long as Gap raises Byung, Eul was obligated to share the child support until he attains his adult age as his father.

Articles 837, 863, 864-2, and 909(4) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) (Law Firm Woo, Attorneys Park Jong-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim (Attorney Kim Ha-chul, Counsel for defendant-Counterclaim)

Principal of the case

May 15, 2015

1. The principal of the case is recognized as the natural father of the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff shall be designated as a person with parental authority and a custodian of the principal of the case.

3. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the child support of the principal of the case from August 2014 to KRW 300,000 per month on the last day of each month from the day before the principal of the case reaches the age of majority.

4. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim for consolation money and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

5. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the remainder, respectively, by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

6. Paragraph 3 can be provisionally executed.

The main lawsuit: The defendant (only hereinafter "the defendant") pays to the plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant; hereinafter "the plaintiff") 5 million won as consolation money and 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 40 million won as child support from August 2014 to the day of full payment of the principal of this case with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of this decision to the day of full payment. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 40 million won per annum from the day of this decision to the day of full payment.

Counterclaim: The defendant shall be designated as a person with parental authority and a custodian for the principal of the case.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 2010, the Defendant had a legal spouse and child in the Republic of Korea frequently on his business trip in the Philippines. Around the first time, the Plaintiff was working in a singing room in the Philippines. After that, on March 2012, the Defendant had a sex relationship with the Plaintiff again in the Philippines. At the time, the Plaintiff was raising a baby born between the former and the latter while divorced from the former and the latter. At the time, the Defendant had prepared a provisional product, such as TV, cooling, cooling, emitting, emitting, and washing, etc. The Defendant visited the Plaintiff at the weekend, and the Plaintiff was introduced the Defendant as a new husband at this time. Although the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to introduce the Plaintiff as a male-child group, the Plaintiff did not introduce the Plaintiff as a new husband.

B. While the Defendant was in the Republic of Korea at around August 2012, the Plaintiff was pregnant with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was pregnant with the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant became aware of the Plaintiff’s pregnancy around September 2012, the Defendant had frequently taken a hospital regular medical examination conducted with the Plaintiff. The Defendant visited the Republic of Korea on May 13, 2013, according to the scheduled date of the Plaintiff’s childbirth, but the Defendant had delayed the Plaintiff’s childbirth, but the Defendant had no choice but to return to the Republic of Korea. On May 17, 2013, the Defendant sent the instant principal to the Republic of Korea on August 13, 2013. The Defendant visited the Republic of Korea on August 13, 2013, and attended the instant principal’s white paper. The Defendant became a sex relationship with the Plaintiff in the said Republic of Korea even around October 2013.

C. Around that time, the Defendant’s spouse had a great disturbance in the house by whiteing the existence of the principal of the case, and the Defendant’s spouse had a serious body of the Defendant’s spouse. Since then, the Defendant became difficult to communicate with or visit the Plaintiff due to the opposition of the Defendant’s spouse.

D. From June 5, 2012 to July 1, 2014, the Defendant transferred almost regularly to the Plaintiff the transferred money to USD 9,353. In addition, the Defendant had sold TV and electronic equipment, etc. to the Plaintiff.

E. The Defendant is currently running business in Korea, and the Defendant’s return amount of global income tax in 2013 is KRW 27,651,054.

F. At present, the Plaintiff is dedicated mainly to fostering the principal of the case in the Philippines, and when the Plaintiff works as the patriarche, friendly money and his sibling helps to look at the principal of the case.

[Based on the recognition] The evidence No. 1 3, the evidence No. 1 to No. 24, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for recognition

According to the above facts, it is evident that the principal of the case is the natural father of the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to recognize the principal of the case as the natural father. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for recognition is justified.

3. Determination on the claim of consolation money

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff was in a de facto marital or marital reservation relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff was pregnant and given birth to the defendant, but the defendant unfairly reversed the de facto marital or marital reservation relationship, so the defendant has a duty to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiff in money. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff was more active in the pregnancy of the principal of this case, and that it is difficult for the defendant to communicate or give money to the principal of this case in opposition of the spouse.

In full view of all the circumstances revealed in the above facts, namely, the defendant had a legal spouse and children in Korea as at the time when the plaintiff was sent to the Republic of Korea, and the defendant first met the plaintiff who had worked in the Republic of Korea through a business trip, etc. with the plaintiff who was pregnant with the plaintiff of this case since then the defendant entered into a sex relationship with the plaintiff each time when the plaintiff visited the Republic of Korea. Since then, the relation between the plaintiff and the defendant and the defendant, and the defendant's spouse who became aware of the existence of the principal of this case, making it difficult for the defendant to contact or visit the plaintiff. Since the time when the plaintiff entered into a relationship with the plaintiff, the defendant transferred almost periodically the plaintiff's living expenses or child support to the plaintiff from the time when the plaintiff was brought to the time when the plaintiff was brought to the lawsuit of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff had a de facto marital marital relationship or marital reservation, or that the defendant was unfairly reversed such relationship. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for consolation money is dismissed as there is no reason

4. Determination on a request for designation of a person with parental authority or custodian

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff should be designated as the person in parental authority and the career of the principal of this case. Accordingly, the defendant argued that the defendant should be designated as the person in parental authority and the career of the principal of this case, since the defendant agreed to refer the principal of this case to Korea before the birth of the principal of this case, and the present spouse of the defendant has agreed to do so, and the plaintiff's spouse is currently engaged in entertainment business, and there is no economic concept.

In full view of all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, including the following: the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, the background leading up to the delivery of the principal of this case, the age of the plaintiff, the defendant and the principal of this case, and the situation of fostering the principal of this case, especially since the birth of the principal of this case, the plaintiff's spouse and children who have become aware of the existence of the principal of this case, and the fact that the defendant's spouse and children who have become aware of the existence of the principal of this case, could have been shocked and the conflict between the defendant and his family, it is determined that the designation of the plaintiff as the person with parental authority

5. Determination on claims for child support

As long as the plaintiff raises the principal of this case, the defendant is obligated to share the child support as his father until the principal of this case becomes adult.

Furthermore, considering the general standards, such as the age and status of fostering the principal of the instant case, the age and age of the principal of the instant case, environment, occupation, economic ability, equity in burden burden burden, and child support calculation standard table prepared with the Seoul Family Court, etc., the prices, economic situation, rearing environment, the Plaintiff’s overall belief in fostering the principal of the instant case, and it seems not easy for the Plaintiff to have a stable occupation in the future. The principal of the instant case appears to require special interest in fostering and education by having a mother who is a Korean father and the Philippines, who is a mother who is a Korean citizen, and is also the Republic of Korea, and the Plaintiff would also be able to learn Korean culture and language from June 5, 2012 to July 1, 2014, it is reasonable to determine that the Defendant’s child support to the principal of the instant case to be paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 300,000 per month.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to pay the child support in a lump sum because it is difficult for the Plaintiff and the instant principal to recover the child support when the child support is unpaid in the manner of monthly payment. However, on the sole basis of such circumstance, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant need to pay the future child support of the instant principal in a lump sum, and rather, it appears that the money would be used for other purposes if it is paid in a lump sum. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 30,000 won per month from August 2014 to the end of each month the principal of this case seeks from August 2014 to the day before the principal of this case reaches the age of majority after the defendant remitted money to the plaintiff as the last child support of the principal

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's main lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim shall be determined as above, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-ok