If Prior Dispositions on Child Support Are Made Enforceable, Who May Challenge the Decision, and How?

The Bill Read and Its Verified Status

This entry reads Bill No. 2219923, a partial amendment to the Family Litigation Act. The bill was introduced by Representative Park Kyun-taek and 10 others on July 13, 2026, and the session is shown as the 437th (extraordinary) session of the National Assembly. As of the verification date, October 16, 2026, the National Assembly progress shown on the page records referral to the competent committee, the Legislation and Judiciary Committee, on July 14, 2026. No placement on the agenda, review, passage, or promulgation was shown on the page.

The parts read were the reasons for the proposal, the main contents, the amended provisions, the addenda, and the comparison table of new and old provisions in the original bill PDF. The file did not contain a cost estimate. The National Assembly legislative status list also showed other bills concerning the same Family Litigation Act, for example a wholly amending bill (No. 2211325) and several partial amendments, but this entry did not read their contents and did not verify their relationship to this bill. Nor did it read the review report or the meeting minutes.

As of the verification date, the current Family Litigation Act was shown as Act No. 20432 (amended by another Act on September 20, 2024, effective January 1, 2026). This entry compared the text of current Article 62 with the "current" column of the bill's comparison table and found no discrepancy.

Sources for this section: National Participatory Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Family Litigation Act (Bill No. 2219923) · Original bill PDF: Partial Amendment to the Family Litigation Act (Bill No. 2219923) · Korea Law Information Center, current Family Litigation Act (Act No. 20432, enforced January 1, 2026)

What the Current Family Litigation Act Provides

Current Article 62 (1) provides that, where an action, a petition for adjudication, or an application for conciliation has been filed in a family case, the Family Court, the conciliation committee, or the conciliation judge may, if it deems it particularly necessary to resolve the case, ex officio or upon application, order the other party or a person concerned to refrain from changing the status quo or disposing of property, and may make appropriate dispositions, such as dispositions for the preservation of property and dispositions for the custody and upbringing of persons concerned. Paragraph (2) requires notice of the sanction under Article 67 (1) when the disposition is made, and paragraph (3) allows the presiding judge or the chair of the conciliation committee to make the disposition alone in urgent cases. Paragraph (4) provides that an immediate appeal may be filed against dispositions under paragraphs (1) and (3), and paragraph (5) provides that a disposition under paragraph (1) shall not have enforceability.

Current Article 67 (1) provides that an administrative fine of not more than KRW 10 million may be imposed on a person who violates a disposition under Article 62 without justifiable grounds. Under the present structure, compliance with a prior disposition is secured through this administrative fine, not through compulsory execution. Current Article 63 provides that, notwithstanding Article 62, the Family Court may order provisional attachment or provisional disposition with a family litigation case or a Category Ma non-contentious family case as the main case; it applies Articles 276 through 312 of the Civil Execution Act mutatis mutandis and allows such orders to be made without requiring security.

Current Article 63-2 allows an order for direct payment of child support to be made upon application by a creditor holding a title of execution for a periodic child-support claim, and it sets as a requirement that the child-support debtor has failed to pay child support two or more times without justifiable grounds. Current Article 64 (1) provides that a performance order may be issued where a person, without justifiable grounds, fails to perform an obligation to pay money, to hand over an infant, or to permit visitation with a child under a judgment, an adjudication, a conciliation protocol, a decision in lieu of conciliation, or a protocol on child-support burden.

As to procedures for challenge, current Article 19 (1) provides that an appeal against a judgment of the Family Court may be filed within 14 days from the date of service of the authentic copy of the judgment. Article 43 (1) provides that only an immediate appeal may be filed against an adjudication, and only in cases separately prescribed by Supreme Court Rules, and paragraph (5) requires that immediate appeal to be filed within 14 days from the date prescribed by Supreme Court Rules. Article 292 (2) of the Civil Execution Act provides that a ruling on provisional attachment may not be executed after two weeks have passed from the date the ruling was notified to the creditor, and Article 301 applies the provisions on provisional attachment procedures mutatis mutandis to provisional disposition procedures. Article 305 (2) of the same Act provides that a provisional disposition may order the other party to do or refrain from doing a certain act, or to make payments, and Article 302 is a deleted provision.

Sources for this section: Korea Law Information Center, current Family Litigation Act (Act No. 20432, enforced January 1, 2026) · Korea Law Information Center current Civil Execution Act (Act No. 20733, enforced February 1, 2026)

What the Bill Seeks to Change

Proposed Article 62 (1) amends the wording so that prior dispositions are made by decision, and divides the types of disposition into four subparagraphs: prohibition of acts, preservation of property, protection, supervision and upbringing of persons concerned, and other appropriate dispositions. The current term "custody" is replaced with "protection, supervision". Proposed paragraph (2) allows a prior disposition to be revoked or modified by decision, ex officio or upon application, where circumstances have changed, and proposed paragraph (3) allows the presiding judge or the chair of the conciliation committee, in urgent cases, to make the decisions under paragraphs (1) and (2) alone. The notice of sanction in current paragraph (2) is moved to proposed paragraph (4) and applies to the decisions under paragraphs (1) through (3).

Proposed paragraph (5) provides that the decisions under paragraphs (1) through (3) shall have enforceability, reversing current paragraph (5). Proposed paragraph (6) provides that, to the extent not contrary to their nature, Articles 63-2 through 64 of the Family Litigation Act and Articles 276 through 301 and 303 through 312 of the Civil Execution Act apply mutatis mutandis to the enforcement procedure. Proposed Article 64 (1) adds decisions on prior dispositions to the list of rulings on which a performance order may be based.

The immediate appeal provision in current paragraph (4) is deleted. Instead, proposed paragraph (7) provides that a person who may file an immediate appeal against the ruling in the main case may file an immediate appeal against the rulings under paragraphs (1) through (3), and proposed paragraph (8) sets the period at one week from the date on which notice of the ruling is received. Proposed paragraph (9) provides that such an immediate appeal has no effect of staying execution, and allows the appellate court to stay execution on condition of security or without security, or to order execution to continue upon provision of security.

Article 1 of the Addenda proposes that the Act take effect on the date of promulgation, and Article 2 provides that it also applies to cases pending before the courts at the time it takes effect. Article 3 provides that prior dispositions made before it takes effect are governed by the former provisions. The reasons for the proposal cite as grounds for the amendment that, because prior dispositions lack enforceability, they cannot be compelled if the other party does not comply, and that execution is in effect stayed once an immediate appeal is filed; they also state that Japan, Germany and other countries recognise the enforceability of prior dispositions. This entry did not verify the foreign legislation.

Sources for this section: Original bill PDF: Partial Amendment to the Family Litigation Act (Bill No. 2219923) · Korea Law Information Center, current Family Litigation Act (Act No. 20432, enforced January 1, 2026)

Who May Challenge a Prior Disposition in a Case Whose Main Ruling Is Not Subject to Immediate Appeal?

Proposed paragraph (7) defines those who may challenge as persons who may file an immediate appeal against the ruling in the main case. Current Article 2 (1), subparagraph 1, item (b) classifies judicial divorce as a Category Na family litigation case; Article 12 makes the Civil Procedure Act apply to family litigation procedures; and Article 19 provides that a judgment of the Family Court is challenged by appeal. Accordingly, the challenge to the ruling in the main case in a family litigation case decided by judgment, such as judicial divorce, is an appeal, not an immediate appeal. Non-contentious family cases are decided by adjudication under Article 39. Under current Article 43, an immediate appeal against an adjudication is also limited to cases separately prescribed by Supreme Court Rules. Read literally, there may be no one who can file an immediate appeal against a prior disposition in a case that ends in a judgment, or in an adjudication case where Supreme Court Rules do not permit an immediate appeal.

Current paragraph (4) provides only that an immediate appeal may be filed against dispositions under paragraphs (1) and (3), without tying it to the method of challenge in the main case. Because the bill deletes this paragraph, the scope for challenge may actually narrow. The reasons for the proposal state only that the immediate appeal system is being reorganised; they do not explain why the range of persons who may challenge is tied to the main case, or how prior dispositions in litigation cases are to be handled. Given that the more a decision carries enforceability, the clearer the route to contest it should be, it appears necessary to verify separately whether this wording produces the intended result.

The period also changes. Proposed paragraph (8) sets it at one week, whereas an immediate appeal against an adjudication under current Article 43 (5) is 14 days. Within the same case, the periods for challenging the prior disposition and the adjudication in the main case would differ. Who is to be able to challenge a decision on a prior disposition in a family litigation case that ends in a judgment, and within what period?

Sources for this section: Original bill PDF: Partial Amendment to the Family Litigation Act (Bill No. 2219923) · Korea Law Information Center, current Family Litigation Act (Act No. 20432, enforced January 1, 2026)

If Preservative-Measure Procedures Apply Mutatis Mutandis, How Is Child Support Accruing Each Month Enforced?

Proposed paragraph (6) applies Articles 276 through 301 and 303 through 312 of the Civil Execution Act mutatis mutandis to the procedure for enforcing decisions on prior dispositions. This range consists of the provisions on provisional attachment and provisional disposition procedures. It includes Article 292 (2), under which a ruling on provisional attachment may not be executed after two weeks have passed from the date the ruling was notified to the creditor, and Article 301 applies this to provisional dispositions as well. For a prior disposition ordering periodic payment of child support, how the two-week execution period applies to the payment obligation that newly arises each month is left to the phrase "to the extent not contrary to their nature".

Proposed paragraph (6) also applies Articles 63-2 through 64 of the Family Litigation Act mutatis mutandis. The order for direct payment of child support under Article 63-2 presupposes a creditor holding a title of execution for a periodic child-support claim, and requires failure to pay two or more times. The text does not state whether a decision on a prior disposition constitutes a title of execution in this sense, or whether the requirements change through mutatis mutandis application. Moreover, because proposed Article 64 (1) includes decisions on prior dispositions among the bases for performance orders, the same decision could attract compulsory execution, a direct payment order, a performance order, and an administrative fine at the same time.

As what kind of title of execution, and in what order and within what period, is a decision on a prior disposition ordering periodic child support to be enforced?

Sources for this section: Original bill PDF: Partial Amendment to the Family Litigation Act (Bill No. 2219923) · Korea Law Information Center, current Family Litigation Act (Act No. 20432, enforced January 1, 2026) · Korea Law Information Center current Civil Execution Act (Act No. 20733, enforced February 1, 2026)

How Does This Differ from the Existing Provisional Attachment and Provisional Disposition in Family Cases?

Current Article 63 provides that, notwithstanding Article 62, the Family Court may order provisional attachment or provisional disposition, applies Articles 276 through 312 of the Civil Execution Act mutatis mutandis, and allows such orders to be made without security. At present the two mechanisms are divided into prior dispositions without enforceability and preservative measures with enforceability. If the bill gives prior dispositions enforceability and applies almost the same provisions of the Civil Execution Act mutatis mutandis, the difference between the two mechanisms will lie mainly in who may make them and which cases may serve as the main case.

Prior dispositions may be made not only by the Family Court but also by the conciliation committee and the conciliation judge, and may also be made ex officio. Preservative measures under Article 63 may be made by the Family Court where a family litigation case or a Category Ma non-contentious family case is the main case. The bill does not settle which route an application for the same purpose should take, or whether security may be required. Current Article 63 (3) provides that, where Article 287 of the Civil Execution Act applies mutatis mutandis, an application for conciliation is deemed to be the filing of the main action, and Article 287 is also within the range of provisions applied mutatis mutandis under proposed paragraph (6). The bill does not state whether the same deeming provision applies to prior dispositions. This entry did not separately read the text of Article 287 of the Civil Execution Act.

How are the requirements and uses of prior dispositions with enforceability and of provisional attachment and provisional disposition under Article 63 to be divided?

Sources for this section: Korea Law Information Center, current Family Litigation Act (Act No. 20432, enforced January 1, 2026) · Original bill PDF: Partial Amendment to the Family Litigation Act (Bill No. 2219923) · Korea Law Information Center current Civil Execution Act (Act No. 20733, enforced February 1, 2026)

By What Means Is the Enforceability of a Prior Disposition on Visitation Realised?

The reasons for the proposal cite, alongside child support, cases in which visitation with a parent does not take place as grounds for the amendment. A prior disposition setting visitation orders not a payment of money but the act of allowing a child to be met. The provisions of the Civil Execution Act applied mutatis mutandis under proposed paragraph (6) are those on provisional attachment and provisional disposition procedures, and Article 305 (2) provides that a provisional disposition may order a person to do a certain act. However, the provisions within the range applied mutatis mutandis do not by themselves make clear by what means the ordered act is to be compelled if the other party does not perform it. This entry did not verify the other provisions of the Civil Execution Act governing methods of compelling performance of obligations to act.

Current Article 64 (1), subparagraph 3 already makes the obligation to permit visitation with a child subject to performance orders, and the bill adds decisions on prior dispositions to that basis. The realisation of prior dispositions on visitation may therefore come to rely on performance orders and administrative fines rather than on compulsory execution. The bill does not state how the wishes and welfare of the child are to be taken into account in enforcement that directly concerns the child.

What specific method of enforcement is meant by providing that a decision on a prior disposition ordering visitation has enforceability?

Sources for this section: Original bill PDF: Partial Amendment to the Family Litigation Act (Bill No. 2219923) · Korea Law Information Center, current Family Litigation Act (Act No. 20432, enforced January 1, 2026) · Korea Law Information Center current Civil Execution Act (Act No. 20733, enforced February 1, 2026)

Commencement and remaining issues

Article 1 of the Addenda proposes that the Act take effect on the date of promulgation. This is a proposed condition, not a fixed date. Article 2 of the Addenda provides that the Act also applies to cases pending at the time it takes effect, and Article 3 provides that prior dispositions made before it takes effect are governed by the former provisions. Accordingly, a person who obtained a prior disposition before the Act takes effect would continue to hold a disposition without enforceability, even while the same case remains pending.

The Addenda do not make clear whether, if a decision modifying an existing prior disposition is obtained under proposed paragraph (2) after the Act takes effect, that decision has enforceability under the new provisions, or whether a disposition made before the Act takes effect may be applied for again in the same terms. Nor do they state which provisions govern the method of challenge where a disposition was made before the Act takes effect and the period for immediate appeal is still running after it takes effect.

This entry did not read the review report, the opinions of the National Court Administration or the Ministry of Justice, Supreme Court Rules, other pending bills on the same Act, or foreign legislation. It neither supports nor opposes the bill and does not predict its outcome. Which provisions are to apply where a prior disposition obtained before the Act takes effect is modified, or obtained again, after it takes effect?

Sources for this section: Original bill PDF: Partial Amendment to the Family Litigation Act (Bill No. 2219923) · National Participatory Legislation Center, National Assembly Legislative Status: Partial Amendment to the Family Litigation Act (Bill No. 2219923)