2012 Pool433 (Request for the Change of Child)

2012Renmark 489 (Refence) Restriction on visitation

2012 Pool490 (Adjudications) Change of Person with Parental Authority

2012 Maz. 491. Delivery of young children

A

B

1. C

2. D;

February 22, 2013

1. The custodian of the principal of the case shall be changed to the claimant (the other party to the case).

2. The other party's claim for adjudication (the claimant for adjudication) is all dismissed.

3. The cost of a trial shall be borne by each person in both the present and semi-trials.

This trial: It is consistent with paragraph (1) of this Article.

Anti-Adjudication: The claimant (the other party to the Anti-Adjudication; hereinafter referred to as the claimant) shall be filed once every three months and every three months.

from 00 to 17 of the same day: Other party (request for adjudication against reflect)

the principal of the case at an agreed place with the person (hereinafter the other party)

of the principal of the case. The claimant shall change the person with parental authority to the other party.

The principal of the case D is transferred.

1. Basic facts

According to the records of this case and the purport of the whole examination, the following circumstances may be acknowledged:

A. On January 10, 2001, the claimant and the other party have married the principal of the case.

B. On November 1, 2010, the claimant and the other party agreed to divorce, and “Around November 1, 2010, the other party prepared a written agreement on divorce including the content that the other party would pay 100 million won as consolation money and the division of property to the claimant by February 1, 2011.

C. On November 22, 2010, the claimant and the other party agreed to jointly designate the person in parental authority of the principal of the case as the claimant and the other party, and designated the person in parental authority as the other party. The child support is determined to be borne by the other party, and the claimant can freely interview the principal of the case at his request.

D. Even after the divorce, the claimant liveds with the other party and went to the office of the claimant around June 201, and the principal of the case had lived in the parent's principal custody at the other parent's home, and the other party was married in a separate place of residence.

E. The claimant was not paid KRW 75 million among the above KRW 100 million paid by the other party. On November 24, 2011, the claimant entered into a provisional attachment application 1) with respect to the apartment of the other party. On December 23, 2011, the other party paid the above money to the claimant on December 23, 201, but in the process, the applicant has a very deepened emotional compromise and conflict with the other party and the other party’s wife.

F. Around that time, the principal of the case did not want to meet the claimant, and the other party also complained of the claimant's complaint that his request for visitation is non-regulation, and the other party has filed a complaint.

12. From the date, visitation rights have not been achieved smoothly with the claimant and the principal of the case.

G. On January 2012, the claimant filed a claim for the instant trial on February 21, 2012, along with the principal of the instant case at a private teaching institute where the principal of the instant case was present and the principal of the instant case’s parent office, and on February 21, 2012, the claimant filed a claim for the instant trial on February 27, 2012 to change the person with parental authority over the principal of the instant case’s delivery and the principal of the instant case’s return to the other party, and to limit the applicant’s visitation right as stated in the above claim.

H. Meanwhile, at the time of the filing of the instant appeal, the other party filed a complaint with the claimant who forged the other party’s name in the process of moving-in report for resident registration to the parent house of the claimant’s parents, and the west District Office of the Daegu District Prosecutors’ Office issued a disposition of suspending indictment against the claimant for the instant case.

I. According to the interview, etc. of the instant case principal under the court’s family examination, C expressed his/her intent that he/she will live together with the other party and the parents of the other party, but his/her emotional stability was low, such as drafting of snow by the other party, etc. In the absence of the other party or the other party, C expressed his/her attitude that he/she could not easily express any internal conflict, such as easily exposing conversations with the claimant, and showing the appearance of the other party or the other party before the other party’s appearance. The friendly density expressed in the dialogue with the other party was somewhat lower.

On the other hand, the case principal D expressed his intention to live together with the claimant during the above investigation process, thought that the life with the claimant is very biased, while the relation density with the claimant is very high, it was found that the other party's attachment, which had been living together before the claimant's house, had a significant and inconvenience appraisal.

(j) The claimant has earned approximately KRW 2 million monthly income while working at a store for selling goods for young children operated by his/her birth, and the other party has earned income of KRW 2 million per month while serving as an insurance solicitor.

2. Determination as to the claim for this adjudication and counter-adjudication

According to the above circumstances and the results of the examination of this case, it is deemed that the defendant's intent to rear the principal of this case is very strong compared to the other party who has been employed continuously to the other party's parents. While the principal of this case did not find emotional and psychological stability as the other party's parents together with the other party's parents, the relative density with the claimant is high, and the principal of this case appeared to be clearly and clearly prepared while living together with the claimant, as well as the various circumstances mentioned above and the present circumstances revealed in the examination process such as the specific fostering situation of the principal of this case, the age, emotional and psychological status and attachment of the principal of this case, the age of the principal of this case and the applicant's age, mental and psychological relation, age, occupation, family relation, living environment, etc., at the present stage, it is deemed necessary to change the rearing person of the principal of this case from the other party to the applicant.

Therefore, there is a reason for the claimant's request for a change of custodian, and eventually, the other party's request for a restriction on the delivery of infant and the visitation right of the other party is groundless, and as long as the person who takes care of the child is changed to the claimant, the other party's above request for change

3. Conclusion

If so, the claimant's request for this trial is justified, and all of the counter-requests of the other party are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-jin

1) Daegu District Court 201Kadan10683, the case of application for provisional seizure against immovables.