208Dives 2706 Delivery of an infant

P milk (68 years old, South)

Attorney Song-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

D Minimum (73 years old, female)

Attorney Kim Young-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

1. B1 oil (B1.1.1.00 and South)

2. B2 oil (B2.1 Nov. 1, 01, South)

Address and place of registration of the principal of the case as the applicant;

September 17, 2008

1. The other party delivers the principal of the case to the claimant. 2. The other party bears the cost of lawsuit.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 6, 1997, the claimant and the other party completed the marriage report and sent the principal of the case under the chain. On December 19, 2006, the agreement was married between them, and at the time of the agreement divorce, they were designated as the person with parental authority and the custodian for the principal of the case.

B. However, around February 2007, the other party demanded the visitation right to the principal of the case and the claimant respondeded to this request, and went back to Busan, the other party's residence, which is his/her domicile, to Busan, the other party's request for delivery. On February 2008, the other party rejected the request for delivery of the principal of the case and returned the case to the other party.

C. Afterwards, the petitioner entrusted the principal of the case to a father-child relationship, and the other party sought an elementary school to which the principal of the case was enrolled again on June 2, 2008 and requested that the principal of the case be drinking together with the principal of the case, but the child was refused to do so on the ground that the other party is not the guardian, and the principal of the case was sent to Busan.

D. Accordingly, the principals of this case are treated as long-term attending an elementary school, and the other party does not send the principal of this case to the school in Busan.

[Grounds for Recognition: omitted]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition of the person with parental authority, the claimant has the right to protect and educate the principal of the case as a person with parental authority. Thus, the claimant is obligated to deliver the principal of the case to the claimant unless the other party has a legitimate right to rear the principal of the case.

B. Determination on the other party’s assertion

The other party sent the principal of the case to the other party for reasons of the claimant's lack of ability and the absence of care for the principal of the case and the care for the principal of the case. On January 2007, the other party again sent the principal of the case to Daejeon by having the petitioner take care of the principal of the case only during the vacation period, but even after the vacation is terminated, it was difficult to return the principal of the case to Busan around February 2007. After that, on February 2008, the other party sent the principal of the case to Daejeon by promising the other party to raise the principal of the case only until the other party during the treatment due to traffic accident, and the other party agreed to raise the principal of the case to the other party only until the other party is able to complete. Thus, the claimant and the claimant's parents did not properly rear the principal of the case, and they did not have any health condition, and they did not help the principal of the case to welfare of the principal of the case.

Therefore, as alleged above by the claimant, it is difficult for the claimant to believe that the health stand in light of the evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 8, and 10 of the evidence Nos. 1, 2 as to whether the claimant renounced the duty to protect and support the principals of the case, or has any difficulty or ability to rear the principals of the case, and each statement Nos. 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, and 10,

Rather, it is not possible for the other party to accept the other party's wife who illegally takes the case principal without going through legitimate legal procedures, resulting in long-term attending a regular school.

Therefore, the other party's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claims of this case shall be accepted and judged as per the disposition.

September 17, 2008

final appeal by judges