209B00 Interview Rights

75 Womens of age who were 75.

71 Males who have been born in 71.

9. Womens of 19 years old

Seoul Family Court Order 2008 Madern ** Judgment * on December 29, 2008

November 15, 2010

1. The adjudication of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The appellant's appeal of this case is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the adjudication shall be borne by the claimant;

1. Purport of request;

The claimant shall be from 10:0 am to 10:0 am on the fourth Saturday from the date of establishment of the first instance trial.

Up to 8 p.m., and in the case of summer and winter, 14 days each, and in the case of winter and winter, it shall be respectively respectively.

In the case of the Gu life saving, the claimant from 3 p.m. on the day of life saving to 6 p.m.

the principal of the case may be visited at the place of residence and the place where the claimant so desires.

If the substitute violates this, an administrative fine of KRW 1 million per violation shall be paid once.

2. Purport of appeal;

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Facts of recognition;

In full view of the overall purport of the records, the following facts may be acknowledged.

A. On March 26, 199, the claimant and the other party were married to bring about the principal of the case and were living separately from May 2003, and thereafter a separate divorce was brought about on October 1, 2004. At the time of separate divorce, the claimant raised the principal of the case, but the other party was a person with parental authority and the custodian for the principal of the case, and the other party is bringing up the principal of the case thereafter.

B. After the divorce, the claimant requested several occasions that the principal of the case be sent to the other party, but the other party refuses the visitation right on the ground that the principal of the case is denied.

C. The principal of the case is currently in the fifth grade of an elementary school, and is refusing to reach an agreement with the applicant.

2. Determination as to visitation right

One of the parents who do not actually raise a child has the visitation right for the child, and generally, it is desirable to hold the visitation right for the child's welfare. However, it is necessary to limit the visitation right if it is judged to infringe the child's welfare.

In this case, the principal of the case expressed a strong intention to refuse the visitation right with the applicant, so it is a matter that it is difficult to alleviate the hostile or rejection of the applicant of the case, through psychological treatment, etc. for visitation right. To this end, under the cooperation of the parties, psychological treatment for the principal of the case was conducted, but has not been continued for a long time, and thereafter the court recommended the applicant to participate in the child voluntary family campaign conducted on June 12, 2010, and the other party expressed his intention to actively cooperate with the intention of refusal until now. However, the applicant is unable to participate in the second family campaign that is located on June 2010, and the date was estimated and estimated in the trial, but the applicant eventually refused to participate in the family campaign for a certain period of October 10.

The purpose of the above family camp is to provide an opportunity to recover the relationship between a non-nurbing parent and his/her child who had been severedd in the past due to his/her living together with his/her non-nurt 2-day child. If the principal of this case voluntarily refuses to meet the family itself, such as this case, he/she may be an efficient means to enjoy the counter-nurt of his/her child. However, the claimant may not only lose the opportunity by refusing to participate in the family camp two times on the ground that he/she is unlured and unlurated, while he/she refuses to participate in the family camp on the ground that he/she would be unlurated, but also unilaterally demand the visitation right on the ground of his/her own position without seeking the appraisal of the principal of this case. Thus, the claimant’s unilaterally implementing the visitation right against the will of the principal of this case without any preparation and effort is rather deemed not desirable for the growth and emotional stability of the principal of this case. Therefore, at present at the time of the claimant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appellant's appeal of this case shall be dismissed due to the lack of reason, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the appeal of the other party shall be accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and it shall be dismissed as per Disposition.

November 15, 2010

Judges Jeon Young-ro

Judges Kim Jong-sung

Judge Non-Credit