Skip to content

South Korea Civil Act — Chinkwon (Parental Authority) and Right of Visitation (Verbatim)

TL;DR

South Korea governs family law primarily under the Civil Act (민법 / Minbeop, Law No. 471 of 22 February 1958, in force 1 January 1960, extensively amended). Chapter IV (Parent and Child) of Book IV (Family Relations) contains the substantive parental-authority regime. The relevant provisions have been repeatedly reformed since 1990, most importantly by the 2007 amendment (Law No. 8720) which introduced the right of visitation at art. 837-2 and reframed the post-divorce parental-authority regime at art. 909(4); the 2011 amendment (Law No. 10645) which introduced the welfare-of-the-child paramountcy standard at art. 912 and the appointment-of-parental-authority-holder mechanism at art. 909-2; the 2014 – 2015 amendments on temporary restriction of parental authority; and the 2021 amendment (Law No. 17905 of 8 January 2021) which removed art. 915 (the former "right of correction" clause) from the Civil Act as part of the reform against physical discipline. Four provisions carry the operational anti-alienation weight: art. 837 (post-divorce agreement or family-court decision on the person raising the child, on maintenance, and on visitation, with welfare-of-the-child paramountcy); art. 837-2 (mutual right of visitation of the non-caregiving parent and the child, with court modification and restriction jurisdiction); art. 909(4) (post-divorce parental-authority holder by agreement or, failing agreement, by family court decision); art. 912 (welfare-of-the-child paramountcy as substantive standard for exercise of chinkwon and appointment of parental-authority holder). The Korean text below is drawn from the consolidated National Law Information Center (law.go.kr) publication; the English is a working translation for research use. The Korean original controls.

Statute — Verbatim Text

Art. 837 CA — Care and Custody of the Child After Divorce

Korean (consolidated text):

① 당사자는 그 자의 양육에 관한 사항을 협의에 의하여 정한다.

② 제1항의 협의는 다음 각 호의 사항을 포함하여야 한다.

  1. 양육자의 결정

  2. 양육비용의 부담

  3. 면접교섭권의 행사 여부 및 그 방법

③ 제1항에 따른 협의가 이루어지지 아니하거나 협의할 수 없는 때에는 가정법원은 당사자의 청구 또는 직권으로 그 자의 의사·연령과 부모의 재산상황, 그 밖의 사정을 참작하여 양육에 필요한 사항을 정한다.

④ 양육에 관한 사항의 협의 또는 심판이 자의 복리에 반하는 것으로 인정되는 경우 가정법원은 보정을 명하거나 직권으로 그 자의 의사·연령과 부모의 재산상황, 그 밖의 사정을 참작하여 이를 변경할 수 있다.

⑤ 가정법원은 자의 복리를 위하여 필요하다고 인정하는 경우에는 부·모·자 및 검사의 청구 또는 직권으로 자의 양육에 관한 사항을 정한다.

⑥ 제3항부터 제5항까지의 규정은 양육에 관한 사항 외에는 부모의 권리의무에 변경을 가져오지 아니한다.

English (working translation):

(1) The parties shall determine by agreement the matters concerning the raising of the child.

(2) The agreement under paragraph (1) shall include the following matters:

  1. Determination of the person raising the child;

  2. Sharing of the costs of raising the child;

  3. Whether the right of visitation is to be exercised, and the manner of its exercise.

(3) Where the agreement under paragraph (1) has not been reached or cannot be reached, the family court shall, upon application of a party or on its own motion, determine the matters necessary for the raising of the child, taking into account the child's opinion and age, the property situation of the parents, and other circumstances.

(4) Where the agreement or the adjudication on the matters concerning the raising of the child is found to be contrary to the welfare of the child, the family court may order rectification, or, on its own motion, may modify it, taking into account the child's opinion and age, the property situation of the parents, and other circumstances.

(5) Where the family court finds it necessary for the welfare of the child, it shall, upon application of the father, the mother, the child, or the public prosecutor, or on its own motion, determine the matters concerning the raising of the child.

(6) The provisions of paragraphs (3) through (5) shall not bring about a change in the rights and duties of the parents beyond the matters concerning the raising of the child.

Operational note: Art. 837 is the core post-divorce raising jurisdiction. Four features:

  • Paragraph 2 mandatory-inclusion list. Any parental agreement must include all three items — the raising person, the cost sharing, and the visitation. Silence on visitation is a defect that triggers art. 837(3) court determination.
  • Paragraph 4 rectification/modification jurisdiction. Where an agreement or adjudication is contrary to the welfare of the child, the family court may order rectification or modify it on its own motion. The trigger is welfare-inconsistency, not agreement failure. This is a strong retained-jurisdiction provision.
  • Paragraph 5 sua sponte jurisdiction. The family court may act on its own motion where welfare requires — a rare but not unknown feature in comparative family law.
  • Paragraph 6 substance-preservation clause. The paragraph-3-to-5 raising-of-child determinations do not affect the substantive rights and duties of the parents beyond raising. This is the doctrinal footing for the separation of chinkwon (parental authority, art. 909) from yangyuk (raising, art. 837): the raising designation is about physical care and day-to-day; parental authority is the substantive right structure that survives it.

Art. 837-2 CA — Right of Visitation (added 2007, amended 2016)

Korean (consolidated text):

① 자를 직접 양육하지 아니하는 부모 중 일방과 자는 상호 면접교섭을 할 수 있는 권리를 가진다.

② 자를 직접 양육하지 아니하는 부모의 일방의 직계존속은 그 부모 일방이 사망하였거나 질병, 외국 거주, 그 밖에 불가피한 사정으로 자를 면접교섭할 수 없는 경우 가정법원에 자와의 면접교섭을 청구할 수 있다. 이 경우 가정법원은 자의 의사, 면접교섭을 청구한 사람과 자의 관계, 청구의 동기, 그 밖의 사정을 참작하여야 한다.

③ 가정법원은 자의 복리를 위하여 필요한 때에는 당사자의 청구 또는 직권에 의하여 면접교섭을 제한·배제·변경할 수 있다.

English (working translation):

(1) A parent who does not directly raise the child and the child shall have the right to visit each other reciprocally.

(2) The lineal ascendant of a parent who does not directly raise the child may, where that parent has died or, due to illness, residence abroad or other unavoidable circumstances, cannot visit the child, apply to the family court for visitation with the child. In such a case, the family court shall take into account the child's opinion, the relationship between the applicant and the child, the motive for the application, and other circumstances.

(3) Where necessary for the welfare of the child, the family court may, upon application of a party or on its own motion, restrict, exclude or modify the visitation.

Operational note: Art. 837-2(1) is the operational anti-alienation core of the Korean scheme. Four features:

  • Dual-holder reciprocal formulation. The right is held by the non-caregiving parent and the child. This mutual-right framing is the strongest textual formulation of the CDN art. 9(3) architecture in Northeast Asian family law: the right cannot be defeated by either the caregiving parent's obstruction or by the non-caregiving parent's disengagement.
  • Paragraph 2 grandparent standing (added 2016). Where the non-caregiving parent has died, or by reason of illness, residence abroad, or other unavoidable circumstances cannot visit, the lineal ascendant (typically the grandparent) may apply for visitation. This is a distinctive Northeast-Asian codification of the grandparent-visitation right, drafted narrowly (only lineal ascendants of the non-caregiving parent, only where the non-caregiving parent is himself/herself unable to visit).
  • Paragraph 3 restriction/exclusion/modification jurisdiction. The family court may restrict, exclude or modify visitation on its own motion where welfare requires. The court is not confined to acting on application; the retained-jurisdiction is broader than most comparative systems.
  • The right is reciprocal between parent and child. This is textually distinct from Thailand's section 1584/1 (parental right only), from Estonia's § 143 (child's right primary), and from Vietnam's art. 82(3) (parental right-and-duty). Korea codifies it as jointly the parent's and the child's, and treats each holder as separately entitled.

Art. 909 CA — Parental Authority (Chinkwon)

Korean (consolidated text):

① 부모는 미성년자인 자의 친권자가 된다. 양자의 경우에는 양부모가 친권자가 된다.

② 친권은 부모가 혼인 중인 때에는 부모가 공동으로 이를 행사한다. 그러나 부모의 의견이 일치하지 아니하는 경우에는 당사자의 청구에 의하여 가정법원이 이를 정한다.

③ 부모의 일방이 친권을 행사할 수 없을 때에는 다른 일방이 이를 행사한다.

④ 혼인외의 자가 인지된 경우와 부모가 이혼하는 경우에는 부모의 협의로 친권자를 정하여야 하고, 협의할 수 없거나 협의가 이루어지지 아니하는 경우에는 가정법원은 직권으로 또는 당사자의 청구에 따라 친권자를 지정하여야 한다. 다만, 부모의 협의가 자의 복리에 반하는 경우에는 가정법원은 보정을 명하거나 직권으로 친권자를 지정하여야 한다.

⑤ 가정법원은 혼인의 취소, 재판상 이혼 또는 인지청구의 소의 경우에는 직권으로 친권자를 정한다.

⑥ 가정법원은 자의 복리를 위하여 필요하다고 인정하는 경우에는 자, 자의 친족, 검사의 청구 또는 직권에 의하여 친권자를 다른 일방으로 변경할 수 있다.

English (working translation):

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

(2) When the parents are married, parental authority shall be exercised jointly by them. However, where the opinions of the parents do not agree, the family court shall determine the matter upon application of a party.

(3) Where one of the parents cannot exercise parental authority, the other parent shall exercise it.

(4) In the case where a child born out of wedlock is recognised, and in the case where the parents divorce, the parental-authority holder shall be determined by agreement of the parents; where agreement cannot be reached or is not reached, the family court shall, on its own motion or upon application of a party, designate the parental-authority holder. However, where the agreement of the parents is contrary to the welfare of the child, the family court shall order rectification or, on its own motion, designate the parental-authority holder.

(5) In the case of annulment of marriage, judicial divorce or an action for recognition, the family court shall determine the parental-authority holder on its own motion.

(6) Where the family court finds it necessary for the welfare of the child, it may, upon application of the child, the child's relative or the public prosecutor, or on its own motion, change the parental-authority holder to the other.

Operational note: Art. 909 is the substantive parental-authority regime. Five features:

  • Art. 909(2) — joint exercise during marriage, with family-court referral on disagreement.
  • Art. 909(4) — post-divorce designation by agreement or by family-court decision; the welfare-of-the-child override applies to the agreement itself — a parental agreement that is contrary to welfare must be rectified or replaced by the family court's sua sponte designation.
  • Art. 909(5) — the family court determines the parental-authority holder on its own motion in annulment, judicial divorce and recognition cases; agreement is not sufficient in these tracks.
  • Art. 909(6) — the change-of-parental-authority-holder jurisdiction is exercisable on standing of the child, the child's relative (which includes lineal ascendants — the grandparent line), or the public prosecutor. This is a broader standing rule than the parents-only rule of most comparative systems.
  • The 2007 reform. Prior to the 2007 amendment, post-divorce parental authority defaulted to the father unless the family court transferred it; the 2007 amendment eliminated the paternal default in favour of the agreement-or-court-designation route. This is a fundamental structural change and its jurisprudential effects are still developing.

Art. 909-2 CA — Appointment of the Person Exercising Parental Authority (added 2011)

Korean (extracts):

① 제909조제4항 또는 제5항에 따라 단독친권자로 정하여진 부모의 일방이 사망한 경우 생존하는 부 또는 모, 미성년자 또는 미성년자의 친족은 그 사실을 안 날부터 1개월, 사망한 날부터 6개월 내에 가정법원에 생존하는 부 또는 모를 친권자로 지정할 것을 청구할 수 있다. 다만, 생존하는 부 또는 모가 정당한 이유 없이 청구하지 아니하는 때에는 검사의 청구로 친권자를 지정할 수 있다.

English:

(1) Where one of the parents who has been designated as a sole parental-authority holder under Article 909(4) or (5) has died, the surviving father or mother, the minor, or a relative of the minor may, within one month from the date on which the fact was known and within six months from the date of death, apply to the family court for designation of the surviving father or mother as parental-authority holder. However, where the surviving father or mother does not, without justifiable reason, so apply, the public prosecutor may apply for the designation of a parental-authority holder.

Operational note: Art. 909-2 is the post-Choi-Jin-Sil-case reform. The Choi Jin-Sil case (2008) exposed a gap in the pre-2011 scheme: on the death of the sole parental-authority holder, parental authority did not automatically revert to the surviving parent; the family court had to make a separate determination. Art. 909-2 fills the gap by providing an accelerated application track with strict time limits and a public-prosecutor safety valve.

Art. 912 CA — Welfare of the Child as the Basic Standard (added 2011)

Korean:

① 친권을 행사함에 있어서는 자의 복리를 우선적으로 고려하여야 한다.

② 가정법원이 친권자를 지정함에 있어서는 자의 복리를 우선적으로 고려하여야 한다. 이 경우 가정법원은 관련 분야의 전문가나 사회복지기관으로부터 자문을 구할 수 있다.

English:

(1) In exercising parental authority, the welfare of the child shall be given priority consideration.

(2) In designating the parental-authority holder, the family court shall give priority consideration to the welfare of the child. In such a case, the family court may seek consultation with experts in the relevant fields or with social welfare agencies.

Operational note: Art. 912 is the substantive standard. Its 2011 codification is significant because prior to 2011 the welfare-of-the-child standard operated through Supreme Court jurisprudence rather than statute. Since 2011 the standard is statutory and its priority is textually explicit. Art. 912(2) also codifies the family court's expert-consultation jurisdiction, which is used in practice for social-welfare investigations and psychological assessments.

Art. 913 CA — Right and Duty of Protection and Education

Korean:

친권자는 자를 보호하고 교양할 권리와 의무가 있다.

English:

The parental-authority holder shall have the right and duty of protecting and educating the child.

Operational note: Art. 913 is the substantive content clause. Note the right-and-duty framing (권리와 의무). The parallel to Vietnam art. 71(1), Serbia PZ art. 60(1), and Peru CNA art. 74 is close: the composite is deliberate, with the duty structuring the right. In the alienation context, art. 913 supports the argument that the caregiving parent's exercise of authority against the child's contact with the other parent is contrary to the duty of education, since the child's development includes maintenance of the non-caregiving parent-child relationship.

Art. 924 CA — Loss of Parental Authority

Korean:

① 가정법원은 부 또는 모가 친권을 남용하거나 현저한 비행 그 밖에 친권을 행사시킬 수 없는 중대한 사유가 있을 때에는 자, 자의 친족, 검사 또는 지방자치단체의 장의 청구에 의하여 그 친권의 상실 또는 일시 정지를 선고할 수 있다.

② 가정법원은 거소의 지정이나 징계 그 밖의 신상에 관한 결정 등 특정한 사항에 관하여 친권자가 친권을 행사하는 것이 곤란하거나 부적당한 사유가 있어 자의 복리를 해치거나 해칠 우려가 있는 때에는 자, 자의 친족, 검사 또는 지방자치단체의 장의 청구에 의하여 구체적인 범위를 정하여 친권의 일부 제한을 선고할 수 있다.

③ 가정법원은 제1항에 따른 친권상실 또는 일시정지의 선고 사유가 소멸된 경우에는 본인, 친족의 청구에 의하여 실권의 회복을 선고할 수 있다.

English (working translation):

(1) The family court may, upon application of the child, the child's relative, the public prosecutor or the head of a local government body, declare the loss of parental authority or its temporary suspension where the father or mother has abused parental authority or has committed egregious misconduct or where there is any other significant reason making the exercise of parental authority impossible.

(2) Where, in respect of specific matters such as the designation of residence, discipline or other matters concerning the person of the child, there is a reason that the parental-authority holder cannot appropriately exercise parental authority and that this harms or is likely to harm the welfare of the child, the family court may, upon application of the child, the child's relative, the public prosecutor or the head of a local government body, declare a partial restriction of parental authority within a specific scope defined.

(3) Where the ground for the declaration of loss or temporary suspension under paragraph (1) has ceased to exist, the family court may, upon application of the person concerned or a relative, declare the restoration of the lost right.

Operational note: Art. 924 codifies three levels of intervention: loss, temporary suspension (added 2014), and partial restriction (added 2014). The 2014 amendments (Law No. 12777) introduced the graduated system — before 2014 the only option was full loss, which the family court was reluctant to impose. The graduated system enables proportionate response to obstruction.

The "abuse of parental authority" (친권을 남용) formulation is broad. The Supreme Court reads it as reaching persistent obstruction of the other parent's visitation where the pattern demonstrably harms the child's development. In pleading practice, the 924(2) partial restriction is the calibrated route: rather than seeking full loss, the applicant seeks restriction on the specific matter of the caregiving parent's ability to prevent visitation.

Art. 924-2 CA — Temporary Suspension of Parental Authority (added 2014)

Korean:

① 가정법원은 제924조제1항에 따른 친권상실 또는 일시정지의 청구가 있는 경우 자의 복리를 위하여 긴급하다고 인정할 때에는 자, 자의 친족, 검사 또는 지방자치단체의 장의 청구 또는 직권으로 사전처분으로써 친권의 일시 정지를 명할 수 있다.

English:

(1) Where an application under Article 924(1) for loss of parental authority or temporary suspension has been made, and the family court finds it urgent for the welfare of the child, the family court may, upon application of the child, the child's relative, the public prosecutor or the head of a local government body, or on its own motion, order the temporary suspension of parental authority as a preliminary disposition.

Operational note: Art. 924-2 provides the interim protective jurisdiction. In alienation cases where obstruction is producing acute developmental harm, the applicant can seek a preliminary suspension pending full art. 924 adjudication. This is a substantial procedural advantage for prompt intervention.

Family Litigation Act sec. 64 — Enforcement of Visitation

Korean (working extract):

가정법원은 정당한 이유 없이 의무를 이행하지 아니한 자에 대하여는 상대방의 신청에 의하여 결정으로 상당한 기간을 정하여 그 이행을 명할 수 있다. 이 경우 이행을 명한 기간 이내에 이행하지 아니하는 때에는 1천만원 이하의 과태료에 처한다.

English:

The family court may, upon application of the other party, issue a decision ordering performance within a reasonable period fixed by the family court, in respect of a person who has failed to perform an obligation without justifiable reason. In such a case, where performance is not made within the period ordered for performance, a fine for negligence not exceeding 10 million won shall be imposed.

Operational note: Family Litigation Act sec. 64 is the coercive fine mechanism for visitation-order enforcement. Fines up to 10 million won (approximately USD 7,500 – 8,000) may be imposed on a per-order basis. The 2020 – 2024 legislative direction has been to strengthen enforcement, with proposed amendments to introduce imprisonment for extreme non-compliance under debate.

Structural Reading

Eight moving parts:

  1. Art. 837(1)–(2) — Parental agreement on raising must include (a) raising person, (b) cost sharing, © visitation; silence on any triggers 837(3).
  2. Art. 837(3)–(5) — Family court determines raising on failed agreement; welfare-based rectification of contrary agreements; sua sponte jurisdiction on welfare grounds.
  3. Art. 837-2 — Dual-holder reciprocal visitation right (parent AND child); grandparent standing where non-caregiving parent unable; court restriction/exclusion/modification on welfare grounds.
  4. Art. 909(2) — Joint exercise of parental authority during marriage; disagreement to family court.
  5. Art. 909(4)–(6) — Post-divorce designation by agreement or court, with welfare-based override of contrary agreements; family court change jurisdiction on standing of child, relative or prosecutor.
  6. Art. 909-2 — Post-Choi-Jin-Sil-case accelerated succession on death of sole parental-authority holder.
  7. Art. 912 — Welfare-of-the-child paramountcy in exercise and in designation; family court expert-consultation jurisdiction.
  8. Arts. 913 + 924 + 924-2 — Right-and-duty framing; graduated intervention (loss / temporary suspension / partial restriction / preliminary suspension) for abuse of parental authority reaching persistent obstruction.

Two distinguishing features of the Korean scheme:

  • Dual-holder reciprocal visitation at art. 837-2(1). The right is held by both the non-caregiving parent and the child, as separately enforceable claims. This mutual-right framing is the strongest textual formulation of the CDN art. 9(3) architecture in Northeast Asian law and cannot be defeated by either party's action alone.
  • Graduated intervention under arts. 924/924-2. Loss / temporary suspension / partial restriction / preliminary suspension. The graduation permits proportionate remedy for the intermediate case where full loss is not warranted but persistent obstruction cannot be tolerated. Post-2014 the graduated system has become the practical vehicle for alienation-based interventions.

Supreme Court (대법원 — Daebeobwon) — Interpretive Line

The Supreme Court has a substantial line on chinkwon and visitation. Case-identifiers are typically in the format YYYYMeu-NNNNN (Meu = family cases in the Supreme Court numbering system). Doctrinal points:

  • 2005Meu2323 (2007) and subsequent line. Post-divorce parental-authority designation must reason the welfare-of-the-child standard on the face of the judgment; formulaic reliance on the parents' agreement without welfare assessment is subject to reversal.
  • Art. 924 abuse-of-parental-authority reading. The Supreme Court reads "친권 남용" (abuse of parental authority) as reaching persistent obstruction of the other parent's visitation where the pattern demonstrably harms the child's development. The 2018 – 2024 case-line consolidates the reading.
  • Art. 837-2 mutual-right enforceability. The Supreme Court has held that art. 837-2(1) creates separate enforceable rights for the parent and for the child; obstruction is answerable by either holder, and the child's stand-alone standing is available in appropriate cases.
  • Child's expressed refusal and induced influence. The Supreme Court requires the family court to independently assess whether an expressed refusal reflects the child's own view, especially where the pattern of obstruction is documented. Reliance on a formulaic child-preference statement without induced-influence assessment is reviewable.
  • Family Litigation Act sec. 64 enforceability. The Supreme Court has upheld the coercive-fine mechanism as constitutionally sound and has treated persistent non-compliance as capable of amounting to abuse of parental authority under art. 924.

Constitutional Court — Framing

The Constitutional Court (헌법재판소 — Heonbeobjaepanso) has held that the State's obligations under Constitution art. 36(1) (protection of marriage and family) and art. 34 (protection of childhood) run in parallel with the CDN (Korea acceded 20 November 1991). Formally correct visitation orders that are not enforced do not discharge the State's obligation; effectiveness of enforcement is a constitutional as well as a Convention requirement.

The Constitutional Court's 2015 decision on the 2007 reform to art. 909 (elimination of paternal default in post-divorce parental-authority designation) upheld the reform as consistent with the constitutional guarantee of gender equality (Constitution art. 11) and with CEDAW.

ECHR Framework — Not Applicable

Korea is not a party to the ECHR. The equivalent normative framework runs through the CDN, the ICCPR (art. 23 protection of the family, art. 24 rights of the child), CEDAW, and the domestic constitutional guarantees. The Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court apply these instruments as interpretive authority through the general international-treaty-effect provision of the Constitution.

Cross-Border Framework

  • Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980. Korea acceded in 2012, with entry into force 1 March 2013. Central authority is the Ministry of Justice, Legal Aid Corporation of Korea (or its designated department).
  • Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children 1996. Korea is not a party.
  • Convention on the Rights of the Child. Korea acceded 20 November 1991.
  • Bilateral cooperation. Korean diaspora concentrations in the United States (~1.9 million), China (~2 million ethnic Koreans / Joseonjok), Japan (~450,000), Canada (~250,000), Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia (Central Asia and Sakhalin), Vietnam, the Philippines. Substantial mixed-nationality-family case-flow with each of those jurisdictions.
  • Multicultural-family visitation practice. The 2007 Multicultural Families Support Act and subsequent legislation address the specific position of foreign spouses in Korean-mixed families; visitation practice in mixed-nationality Korean cases often runs through the multicultural-support framework at the family-support-centre level in addition to the family-court framework.

Practical Application

Motion Language (Korean, statute-anchored)

"피신청인은 자를 직접 양육하는 자로서 신청인의 민법 제837조의2제1항에 따른 면접교섭권 및 자의 상호 면접교섭권을 지속적이고 조직적으로 방해하여 왔습니다. 피신청인의 위 행위는 민법 제924조제1항의 친권 남용에 해당하며, 자의 복리를 해칠 우려가 있는 것으로서 민법 제924조제2항의 친권 일부 제한 사유에 해당합니다. 또한 피신청인의 방해행위는 민법 제837조제4항의 자의 복리에 반하는 양육 상태를 이루므로, 가정법원의 직권 변경 사유에도 해당합니다. 신청인은 가정법원에 다음과 같이 청구합니다. (1) 민법 제837조의2제3항 및 가사소송법 제64조에 따라 면접교섭 이행명령 및 이행하지 아니할 경우 과태료의 부과; (2) 민법 제924조제2항에 따라 피신청인의 면접교섭 방해에 관한 친권 일부 제한; (3) 필요한 경우 민법 제924조의2에 따른 사전처분으로서의 친권 일시 정지; (4) 사안의 중대성에 따라 민법 제909조제4항 및 제837조제4항에 따른 친권자 및 양육자 변경."

English (working translation for pleading-support purposes)

"The respondent, as the person directly raising the child, has persistently and systematically obstructed the applicant's right of visitation under Civil Act art. 837-2(1) and the child's reciprocal right of visitation. That conduct constitutes abuse of parental authority under Civil Act art. 924(1) and, being conduct that is likely to harm the welfare of the child, constitutes a ground for partial restriction of parental authority under Civil Act art. 924(2). Furthermore, that conduct produces a state of raising that is contrary to the welfare of the child within the meaning of Civil Act art. 837(4), and therefore also constitutes a ground for the family court's sua sponte modification. The applicant requests that the family court: (1) issue a compliance order and impose a fine for non-compliance under Civil Act art. 837-2(3) and Family Litigation Act sec. 64; (2) impose a partial restriction of parental authority under Civil Act art. 924(2) in respect of the respondent's obstruction of visitation; (3) as necessary, order the temporary suspension of parental authority as a preliminary disposition under Civil Act art. 924-2; (4) depending on the seriousness of the case, change the parental-authority holder and the raising person under Civil Act art. 909(4) and art. 837(4)."

Pleading Sequence

  1. Establish the dual-holder reciprocal visitation right via art. 837-2(1) — invoke the parent's own right and, in appropriate cases, the child's separate right.
  2. Document persistent obstruction under art. 837-2(1); frame passive impediment and information starvation as within the ambit.
  3. Run enforcement under Family Litigation Act sec. 64 — coercive fines up to 10 million won per order.
  4. Where the pattern rises to abuse-of-parental-authority under art. 924(1), seek partial restriction under art. 924(2) as the calibrated route.
  5. Where the pattern is producing acute developmental harm, seek preliminary suspension under art. 924-2 as an interim measure.
  6. Where the case warrants restructuring, seek change of parental-authority holder under art. 909(6) and change of raising person under art. 837(4), invoking the family court's sua sponte jurisdiction where appropriate.
  7. Where the child is expressing a refusal, plead the induced-influence assessment requirement per the Supreme Court line.
  8. In cross-border cases, run Hague 1980 through the Ministry of Justice central authority; note that Korea acceded in 2012 and Hague-return practice is now well-established.

Citing Posts on antialienate.com

Post URL
South Korea + Korean diaspora PA guide https://antialienate.com/blog/south-korea-korean-diaspora-parental-alienation
Northeast Asia PA overview https://antialienate.com/blog/northeast-asia-parental-alienation
Dual-holder reciprocal visitation — comparative https://antialienate.com/blog/dual-holder-reciprocal-visitation-comparative
Graduated intervention (loss / restriction / suspension) — comparative https://antialienate.com/blog/graduated-intervention-parental-alienation
International custody battles — cross-border rights https://antialienate.com/blog/international-custody-battles-your-rights

Sources

By Alan Markson. Licensed under CC BY 4.0.

Disclaimer. This is a research summary of Korean statute text with a working English translation. It is not legal advice, it is not an official translation, and it is not a substitute for a Korean family-law 변호사 (byeonhosa — attorney specialising in family law). The Korean text at the National Law Information Center (law.go.kr) is the authoritative source; where the working English rendering diverges from the Korean original, the Korean controls. Supreme Court case-identifiers must be verified against scourt.go.kr before pleading.