2015 Diplomatic change in the origin of surname and origin of surname

○○ Kim (1985 Life, Women)

50(1984, 198)

1. △△ (2012years, remaining)

2. Maumo (the 2014 Lifelong, the female).

o October 1, 2015

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

It is permitted to change the nature of the principal of the case into "Glaver," and the origin to "Glaver," respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the records of this case and the contents of the investigation report on the preparation of the family affairs investigator and the purport of the whole examination.

A. On October 28, 2011, the claimant and the person concerned have completed the marriage report and had the principal of the case under the chain of the case. On October 31, 2014, the related person filed a principal lawsuit, including divorce, against the claimant on October 31, 2014. On December 16, 2014, the claimant filed a counterclaim, including divorce and solatium, with the Jeju District Court 2014dan10595, and the divorce conciliation was established on February 11, 2015. (b) At the time of divorce conciliation, the applicant designated the person with parental authority and the guardian for the principal of the case as the child care expenses of the principal of the case, and the related person agreed to negotiate the principal of the case two times a month with the principal of the case, including the principal of the case, and the principal of the case is 300,000 won per 30,000 won per 1 child care center.

The claimant is raising about KRW 700,00 per month while working on a part-time basis, and raises the principal of the case at the friendly home, and is under the assistance of the parents in relation to the rearing of the principal.

The parties concerned are regularly paying the child support of the principals of the case in accordance with the above divorce mediation and the visitation right is being done without a big problem.

(d)The family investigator reported, through the investigation report, that both the claimant and the persons concerned have a sufficient interest in the principal of the case as a parent, and that both the claimant and the persons concerned are formed with the person concerned;

E. On August 4, 2015, the claimant and the person concerned participated in parent rearing guidance for minor children conducted by this court.

F. In the event of pregnancy of the principal of the case, the claimant unilaterally filed a divorce lawsuit and brought about a divorce by the relevant person, and shows the negative appraisal of the relevant person.

2. Determination

A. The claimant's assertion

In the situation where the principal of the case does not live with the related person after the divorce of the claimant and the related person, and the visitation right with the related person is made more than two times per month, it is meaningful for the principal of the case to continue to comply with the performance and origin of the related person. In particular, since the principal of the case is attending a child-care center, it is highly likely that mental confusion may occur if the principal of the case becomes aware that the sex of the claimant is different from that of the principal of the case.

Therefore, for the welfare of the principals of this case, it is necessary to change the performance and origin into the performance and origin of the claimant.

B. Determination

In order to justify the change of the present case's present performance and origin, it should be apparent that such change will be more helpful for the sound growth and welfare of the case's principal than in the case of maintaining the present performance and origin.

However, in relation to the bringing-up of the principal of this case, it is clearly difficult to view that changing the principal of this case's performance into the petitioner's welfare is more helpful to the principal of this case, in light of the following: (a) the related person is regularly paying child support after divorce and regularly conducting visitation rights with the principal of this case and the interested person is assessed to have considerable friendship and attachment as his father for the principal of this case; (b) the emotional friendliness is maintained between the principal of this case and the related person formed through regular visitation rights; and (c) the reason why the petitioner intends to change the principal of this case's performance into the principal of this case's performance is, rather than for the principal of this case's performance, the result of changing the principal of this case's performance to the mother's performance is likely to have a negative impact on the payment of visitation rights or child support between the related person and the principal of this case's welfare.

Therefore, in full view of the above circumstances, it is inappropriate to change the petitioner’s performance and origin to that of the petitioner.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the appeal of this case is dismissed for the reason that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

October 1, 2015

Judges Transferability