logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울가법 2002. 8. 19.자 2002느합35 심판 : 확정
[친권상실선고 및 후견인해임 심판][하집2002-2,371]
Main Issues

The case affirming all of the claims against a minor child on the condition that the adjudication of the loss of parental authority against his or her mother and the adjudication of the loss of parental authority against his or her mother, which is a legal guardian, have been filed concurrently on the condition that the adjudication of the loss of parental authority against his or her mother and the adjudication of the loss of parental authority against his or her mother are filed by

[Reference Provisions]

[1] Articles 924 and 940 of the Civil Code

Reference Cases

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Claimant

Claimant

Other Party

Other than 1 et al.

Principal of the case

Principal of the case

Text

1. The other party shall lose parental authority over the principal of the case;

2. To dismiss 2 other party to the guardian in the principal of the case.

3.The cost of a trial shall be borne by the other party.

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. The following facts are acknowledged in light of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 12 and each statement of certification submitted by the claimant, and the whole purport of the examination.

A. On June 27, 198, the other party 1 completed a marriage report with Nonparty 1 on June 27, 198, and gave birth to the principal of the case on January 4, 1990, and the other party 1 and Nonparty 1 were divorced by a judicial compromise on January 26, 1994, and determined the person exercising parental authority and the person under custody of the principal of the case as one other.

(b)Afterward 1, July 23, 1996, the applicant completed the marriage report with the claimant on July 23, 1996, and on March 26, 1997, the claimant gave birth to 2 other than the claimant and died on April 26, 2001.

C. After the other party 1 was divorced from the claimant 1 as above, he completed the marriage report with the non-party 3 on August 4, 1995, and transferred to Australia on September 4, 1995, and gave birth to the non-party 4 on August 4, 1998. The other party 1 was divorced from the claimant 1 and gave birth to the non-party 1 on August 4, 1998. The other party 1 is in a state of de facto being unable to exercise parental authority over the principal of the case by informing him of his whereabouts without any contact with the principal of the case until his death as well as until now

(d)After the death of Nonparty 1, there are both parties A and B, i.e., A and B, A and B, i.e., B, i., B, and C, i.e., B, i., her lineal blood relative of the principal of the case. Nonparty 2, like Nonparty 1, refused any contact with the principal of the case without any contact with the principal of the case, and the principal of the case is refusing any contact by changing his phone number without complying with the request for consultation about the exercise and fostering of parental authority over the principal of the case.

2. According to the above facts, upon the death of Nonparty 1, his father, Nonparty 1, the mother of the principal of the case, the mother of the principal of the case, exercised parental authority over the principal of the case, but the other party 1, in fact, is unable to exercise parental authority, such as moving to Australia and failing to contact the principal of the case at all, etc., and it is recognized that there is a serious reason not to exercise parental authority over the principal of the case.

Meanwhile, under the above circumstances, other party 2, the oldest lineal blood relatives of the principal of the case, shall be deemed as the guardian of the principal of the case, and the other party 2 shall also be deemed to be unable to perform the duties of such guardian on the ground that he/she does not contact the principal of the case at all.

3. Therefore, the adjudication of loss of parental authority on the principal of the case shall be made as ordered by the other party, and such adjudication shall be made as dismissal of two other parties to the guardian of the principal of the case.

Judgment intentionally (Presiding Judge) Governing the circumstances of the two crimes

arrow