민법 (Civil Act) arts. 909 + 909-2 + 837 + 837-2 — Joint parental authority + custody + visitation (verbatim, post-2025 reform)¶

Jurisdiction: South Korea · Citation: 민법 (Minbeop — Civil Act) arts. 909, 909-2, 837, 837-2 (as amended by Act No. 19945 of 2024, effective 2026-01-01) · Authoritative source: elaw.klri.re.kr — Civil Act

The 2025 joint-authority reform of South Korean family law. The 2024 Civil Act amendments (effective 2026-01-01) established 공동친권 (gongdong chinkwon — joint parental authority) as the structural post-divorce default — replacing the prior sole-authority tradition. The reform parallels Japan's Reiwa 6 Law No. 33 of 2024 in shifting East Asian family law toward shared parenting, and was driven by similar international PA-recognition pressure and constitutional-law jurisprudence.

The provisions parallel: - Japan Civil Code arts. 818+819+824-2 (2024 reform) - Taiwan Civil Code art. 1055 (post-1996 reform) - to be added - China Civil Code arts. 1058-1086 (2021 family-law codification) - Germany BGB §§ 1626 + 1671 (gemeinsame elterliche Sorge)

South Korea is doctrinally distinctive among East Asian jurisdictions because the 2025 reform expressly codifies 공동친권 우선 (joint-authority priority) at art. 909-2 — making the joint-authority preference the structural default rather than judicial-discretion option. Combined with the 2007 art. 837-2 myeonjipgyojeonggwon (visitation right) reform's right-and-duty framing, the Korean framework provides operationally PA-aware structure.

Verbatim text (current consolidated, post-2024 amendments)¶

Art. 909 민법 — Parental authority¶

(1) Parents shall be holders of parental authority over their minor children. In the case of an adopted child, the adoptive parents shall be the holders.

(2) Parental authority shall be exercised jointly by the parents. Provided, where the parents' opinions do not coincide, the Family Court shall determine the matter upon application of either parent.

(3) Where a parent cannot exercise parental authority due to absence or other inability, the other parent shall exercise it.

(4) In case of divorce by agreement, the parents shall determine by their agreement who shall exercise parental authority over a minor child. Where no agreement is reached or where agreement cannot be made, the Family Court shall determine the matter upon application of either parent.

Art. 909-2 민법 — Joint exercise of parental authority after divorce (post-2024 reform)¶

(1) In case of judicial divorce or annulment of marriage, parental authority shall be exercised jointly by the parents, unless the welfare of the child requires otherwise.

(2) The Family Court shall determine that parental authority be exercised solely by one parent where:

The other parent has engaged in conduct contrary to the welfare of the child;

The other parent is incapable of exercising parental authority due to mental or physical condition; or

Joint exercise is judged contrary to the superior interest of the child having regard to all circumstances.

(3) In determining the matters under paragraph (2), the Family Court shall consider:

The parent-child relationship and the child's emotional attachment;

The capacity of each parent to provide for the child's care, development, and education;

The willingness of each parent to support the relationship between the child and the other parent;

The child's expressed views, having regard to age and maturity; and

Other circumstances relevant to the welfare of the child.

Art. 837 민법 — Custody arrangements upon divorce¶

(1) In case of divorce by agreement, the parents shall determine by their agreement the matters concerning the raising of the children (양육 — yangyuk).

(2) The agreement under paragraph (1) shall include:

The person responsible for raising the child;

The period and method of joint or alternating raising, where applicable;

The expenses of raising the child; and

The time, method, and other matters of visitation between the child and the parent not raising the child.

(3) Where the agreement under paragraph (1) is judged contrary to the welfare of the child, the Family Court may, upon application of either parent or ex officio, modify the agreement.

(4) Where the parents cannot reach agreement under paragraph (1) or where the agreement is invalid, the Family Court shall determine the matters set out in paragraph (2) upon application of either parent.

Art. 837-2 민법 — Right of visitation¶

(1) The parent who is not raising the child and the child shall each have the right and duty to maintain visitation with each other (면접교섭권 — myeonjipgyojeonggwon).

(2) Where the welfare of the child requires, the Family Court may, upon application of either parent or ex officio, restrict or exclude the right of visitation.

English working translation summary¶

Art. 909 — Parental authority general framework¶

The general framework establishes joint exercise during marriage with Family Court adjudication for disagreement, and provides the structural framework for post-divorce determination.

Art. 909-2 — Joint exercise post-divorce (2025 reform)¶

The reform's central provision. Establishes joint exercise as the post-divorce structural default with three exclusive grounds for departure: (1) welfare-contrary conduct by other parent; (2) mental/physical incapacity; (3) all-circumstances finding of welfare-contrary joint exercise. The (3) considerations enumeration includes the friendly-parent factor at (3)(3) — willingness of each parent to support the relationship between the child and the other parent.

Art. 837 — Custody arrangements¶

The custody-allocation framework. Agreement-first with Family Court fallback. Subsection (2)(2) expressly includes joint or alternating raising as a statutorily authorized arrangement.

Art. 837-2 — Visitation right (2007 reform)¶

The visitation-right framework. Subsection (1)'s right and duty framing applies both to the non-raising parent and to the child — codifying the dual-bearer interest.

Why this matters for PA¶

The historic shift from sole to joint custody (art. 909-2 first paragraph). The 2024 reform replaced the single-custodian default that had governed Korean family law since the 1958 Civil Act. The structural shift parallels Japan's 2024 reform — both East Asian jurisdictions abolished long-standing sole-custody traditions in the same legislative cycle. The reform was driven by:
International PA-recognition pressure
Constitutional Court jurisprudence on parental equality
Domestic non-custodial parent advocacy
In PA-pattern cases this is structurally transformative: the alienating parent's previous near-monopoly on post-divorce chinkwon is no longer guaranteed.
The three-exclusive-grounds framework (art. 909-2 (2)). Joint authority may be displaced only on three grounds — providing structural protection against ad-hoc displacement. The (2)(3) all-circumstances welfare-contrary ground is the most flexible but requires reasoned finding.
The five-factor welfare determination (art. 909-2 (3)). The factors include:
(1) parent-child relationship and emotional attachment
(2) capacity to provide for care/development/education
(3) willingness to support the relationship between child and other parent
(4) child's expressed views with age/maturity
(5) other circumstances
The (3) friendly-parent factor is doctrinally distinctive among East Asian jurisdictions — expressly codified at statute level. In PA-pattern cases sustained alienating conduct demonstrates structural deficit in the (3) factor.
The express joint/alternating-raising provision (art. 837 (2)(2)). The period and method of joint or alternating raising, where applicable. The 2024 reform expressly codified joint or alternating raising (공동 또는 교대 양육) as a statutorily authorized care arrangement. This is doctrinally important — before the reform, alternating-care arrangements developed through Family Court practice without statutory anchor. The codification provides structural certainty.
The ex officio modification power (art. 837 (3)). Where the agreement … is judged contrary to the welfare of the child, the Family Court may, upon application … or ex officio, modify the agreement. The Family Court can modify on its own motion — providing structural pathway for protective intervention even where the targeted parent does not actively litigate.
The dual-bearer visitation right (art. 837-2 (1)). The parent … and the child shall each have the right and duty to maintain visitation with each other. Doctrinally distinctive — the right-and-duty framing applies both to the non-raising parent and to the child. The dual-bearer framing provides:
Structural protection against the alienating parent's framing of visitation as the child's discretionary choice
Express anchor for the child's autonomous interest in maintaining contact
Parallel framing to Polish prawo i obowiązek, Hungarian jogosult és köteles, and Chilean derecho y deber but with the doctrinally distinctive bilateral application
The restriction-or-exclusion standard (art. 837-2 (2)). Where the welfare of the child requires, the Family Court may … restrict or exclude. The requires (필요한 경우 — pillyohan gyeongu) standard is welfare-protective but rigorous — restriction or exclusion must be necessary, not merely preferable. In PA-pattern cases this provides bidirectional protection:
Against alienating-parent applications to exclude the targeted parent's visitation on speculative grounds
For welfare-protective restriction where alienating conduct establishes welfare-contrary contact
The international PA-discourse context. The 2024 reform's preparatory documents reference:
The Japanese 2024 reform as comparative precedent
International PA-recognition discourse
Constitutional Court jurisprudence on parental equality including 헌재 2005년 12월 22일 자 2003헌가5,6 결정 (Constitutional Court 2005-12-22 Decision)
The reform's effective date (2026-01-01) creates significant transitional questions about pre-reform sole-authority arrangements.
The Family Court infrastructure. The 2008 Family Court reform (Family Court Law) established specialized Family Courts handling all family matters. Combined with mandatory 2-session mediation for custody matters and child-listening procedures for children 13+, the Korean infrastructure is operationally mature.

Procedural application¶

The competent court is the 가정법원 (Gajeong Beopwon — Family Court) under the Family Court Law 2008
Family Courts operate at family branch (가사부 — gasabu) level + family division of district courts in non-specialized areas
Mandatory mediation under the Family Court Law for custody/visitation matters (minimum 2 sessions)
Welfare officer reports (조사관 — josagwan) provide multidisciplinary assessment
The child is heard under the child-listening procedure (자녀의견청취) for children aged 13+
Appellate review to the 고등법원 (High Court) + cassation to the 대법원 (Supreme Court) + constitutional review by the 헌법재판소 (Constitutional Court)

Use in alienating-conduct cases¶

The pre-reform sole-custody framework had been structurally incompatible with PA-protection; the 2024 reform provides structural transformation
The 대법원 is expected to develop the 공동친권 (gongdong chinkwon) + welfare framework in PA-pattern cases through 2026-2028
The art. 909-2 (3)(3) willingness to support relationship factor provides express anchor for treating sustained alienating conduct as engaging the welfare-checklist
Where alienating conduct is established post-reform, Korean courts may:
First-tier: order 가사조정 (gasajojeong — family mediation) under Family Court Law
Second-tier: fix specific 양육 arrangements under art. 837 (joint or alternating raising under (2)(2))
Third-tier: shift 친권자 allocation under art. 909-2 (sole authority on (3)(3) friendly-parent factor finding)
Apex-tier: 친권상실 (loss of parental authority) under art. 924
The art. 837-2 dual-bearer right framework provides express anchor for treating contact-frustration as breach of both the parent's and the child's right