2017 Dives 200274. Designation, change, etc. of a person with parental authority

2017 Doz. 200398 (Rejudgments) Child support, etc.

Section B.

1. Sick:

2. Fixedness;

July 30, 2018

1. The person with parental authority and the custodian of the principal of the case shall be changed to the claimant (the other party to the case).

2. On August 1, 2018, from August 1, 2018 to the date on which the principal of the case reaches his age, the other party (person who has filed an appeal) shall pay 50,000 won per capita of the principal of the case from August 1, 2018 to the date on which the principal of the case reaches his age.

3.The other party (person who has filed an appeal)'s appeal shall be dismissed.

4. The other party (appellant) may visit the principal of the case as follows by the day before the principal of the case reaches each adult age. The claimant (the other party to the case) shall actively cooperate with the above visitation and shall not interfere with it.

(a) schedule;

(1) The second week, fourth Sundays 10:00 to 17:00 a.m.

(2) Year-to-day New Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Year’s Day: two

(b) Place: The place designated by the other party (person who has requested a trial against one another);

(c) Method: The method of bringing the other party (person who has filed a counterclaim) into the place of residence of the principal of this case and participating in the visitation under an adequate law and then moving into the place of residence of the principal of this case; and

(d) The claimant (the other party to the counter-trial) and the other party (the appellant) may, in advance, consult in advance and change the time, place, and method of the visitation, provided that, in the event of a change in the schedule of the visitation, at least three days prior to such change, the visitation shall be consulted on a change in schedule.

(e) The claimant (the counter-appellant) and the other party (the counter-appellant) shall respect to the will and welfare of the deceased himself as much as possible in conducting the visitation.

5. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

In this trial: Disposition No. 1 and the other party (hereinafter referred to as "the other party from the time after the counter-appellant,") pay KRW 1,00,000 per month from the date of the instant trial to June 25, 2024 for the child support of the principal of this case to the claimant (the counter-appellant, from the next day to the next day to November 16, 2027).

The claimant shall deliver the principal Byung to the other party. The claimant shall pay 90,000 won to the other party for the past child support of the principal of the case. The claimant shall pay 1,00,000 won each month from the market date of the instant case to June 25, 2025, and 50,000 won each month from the next day until November 16, 2027.

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the records of this case and the purport of the whole examination, the following facts are recognized:

A. On July 25, 2005, the claimant and the other party reported a marriage, and they placed the case principal as their children.

B. The claimant and the other party shared consultations on March 25, 2009, and designated the person having parental authority and the person having parental authority over the principal of the case as the other party.

C. On June 29, 2010 in the case where the claimant filed a claim against the other party in Busan District Court's family branch, such as a change of person with parental authority against the other party, etc., the claimant shall withdraw the claim of this case and the other party shall consent to the claim. On June 2, 201, the claimant may hold an interview at a place where the petitioner may take the petitioner's responsibility for the case from 0:0:0:0:0:00:0:0:00: on April 4, 201, the claimant may hold the interview at the place where the other party may take the responsibility. The conciliation was concluded. Since the claimant was consulted in accordance with the conciliation with the principal of this case, the other party was more than the time for the interview as set by the claimant, and the other party requested the additional visitation. Accordingly, the other party and the other party of this case have increased.

D. From May 2016, the other party, who was living together with the principal of this case, brought up the principal of this case from around 00 to around 00, and there was no reason between this0 and the principal of this case. On June 2016, the other party sent the principal of this case to the petitioner on the premise that it is difficult for the petitioner to take care of the principal of this case to take care of the principal of this case. On the other hand, the other party sent the principal of this case to the petitioner. On the other hand, the other party took care of the principal of this case, notwithstanding the opposition of the petitioner.

E. On May 17, 2017, the other party raised the principal of the case, and was punished on the ground that the principal of the case was found to have been punished on the ground of decoration. On May 17, 2017, the other party saw that the principal of the case was punished on the ground that the principal of the case was excavated without any brucation, and when the principal of the case was married with the buckton, etc., and on May 20, 2017, on the ground that the principal of the case was flucated with flusor and bucks, etc., on the ground that the principal of the case was flusor and made a false flusor, etc. on the ground that the principal of the case was fluddial.

F. On May 17, 2017, the instant principal Byung recorded the situation at which the other party was the principal of the case as a mobile phone, and the principal of the instant case found the police station on May 21, 2017 and brought the other party and 00 to a child abuse. The other party was isolated from the principal of the instant case upon ad hoc measure decision on May 23, 2017, and the principal of the instant case was brought up by the requester after the completion of the ad hoc measure. The claimant called “from the main body of the instant case,” “from May 7, 2018,” and brought up and brought up the principal of the instant case by phone.”

G. The claimant is acting as a sales agent and advertising agency, and the revenue is KRW 200,000 per month (in addition to piece rates), and the other party is engaged in interior fishery, and the revenue is KRW 4 million per month to KRW 5,00,000 per month.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to a claim for change of a person with parental authority or a custodian in this trial

The petitioner and the other party have strong intent to rear the principal of this case and have an economic condition to rear the principal of this case: Provided, That the conflict situation between the other party and the principal of this case and the other party Byung, the other party's attitude to rear the principal of this case, the other party's attitude to rear the principal of this case, the other party's method of nurturing the principal of this case, the other party's method of nurturing the principal of this case, the interview right was not fulfilled when fostering the principal of this case, the other party's custody of the principal of this case goes against the emotional stability of the principal of this case, the other party's age, gender, and intent of the principal of this case are considered to be consistent with the emotional stability and welfare of the principal of this case.

B. Determination as to a claim for delivery of an infant during a counter-adjudication

The other party is seeking the delivery of the case principal Byung, but the other party's request for delivery is groundless as long as the person who takes custody of the case principal Byung is changed to the applicant.

C. Determination on the claim for child support in the main trial and anti-trials

(1) The part of the other party’s claim for the past child support

From March 209 to May 2017, the other party requested the applicant for child support of KRW 90 million. However, in light of the fact that the other party did not file a claim for child support before the claim for the instant adjudication after divorce, the other party was not cooperative in the visitation right of the applicant after divorce, and that there was no talk about child support in the case for change of person with parental authority, etc. brought to the claimant, it is reasonable to deem that there was an implied agreement between the claimant and the other party to bear the child support of the principal of the instant case at the time of divorce. Accordingly, the other party’s claim for child support in the past cannot be accepted.

(2) Part of the claimant's claim for future child support

In consideration of the age, occupation, import, property, age and status of the principal of the case, the amount of standard childcare expenses under the standard table for calculation of child rearing expenses of the Seoul Family Court on August 2017, 2017, the burden of the child rearing expenses of the principal of the case is deemed to be equitable from not receiving the other party’s claim for child rearing expenses, and various circumstances such as the party’s intent, etc., the other party shall be determined to pay the child rearing expenses of KRW 500,000 per person of the principal of the case on the last day of each month as the child rearing expenses of the principal of the case from August 1, 2018 to the day before the principal of the case reached each gender year.

(c) Interview right;

Unless it is contrary to the welfare of the principal of the case, the non-nive parent-child has the right to visitation with the principal of the case. Taking into account various circumstances, such as the age, rearing status, and the intent of the parties, it is reasonable to ex officio set forth in Paragraph 4 of this Article for the emotional stability and welfare of the principal of the case.

3. Conclusion

The claim for the change of a person with parental authority and a person with custody among the claims for the principal adjudication of the claimant shall be accepted for the reasons thereof, and the claim for the transfer of a child against the other party and the claim for the transfer of a child to the child support agency shall be determined as above, and the interview right shall be dismissed for all reasons.

Judges Yoon Jae-nam