Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
Joint custody after a contested divorce only where its conditions are met
Supreme Court, May 14, 2020, 2018Meu15534 (judgment)
Case name: 이혼[이혼과 함께 자녀의 친권자 및 양육자의 지정을 구하는 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When parents divorce, must the court designate a single custodian for the minor child, or may it designate both parents as joint custodians, and what conditions must be met before joint custody is possible?
Holding
A single custodian need not be designated, so joint custody is formally possible. It is possible only where it can be seen that the conditions for joint custody are in place, judged by weighing together whether the parents are ready for it and do not differ markedly in their views on child-rearing, whether they live near each other with similar environments so that the child's economic and time loss is small and adaptation is not a problem, and whether the child has the rational and emotional capacity to accept the arrangement. In this case both parents had asked throughout to be named sole custodian, so, as things stood, it appeared hard to expect that they would cooperate smoothly on joint custody in the near future, and naming one custodian with visitation rights would largely achieve what joint custody was meant to achieve, which made the judgment below erroneous.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
재판상 이혼의 경우 부모 모두를 자녀의 공동양육자로 지정하는 것은 부모가 공동양육을 받아들일 준비가 되어 있고 양육에 대한 가치관에서 현저한 차이가 없는지, 부모가 서로 가까운 곳에 살고 있고 양육환경이 비슷하여 자녀에게 경제적·시간적 손실이 적고 환경 적응에 문제가 없는지, 자녀가 공동양육의 상황을 받아들일 이성적·정서적 대응능력을 갖추었는지 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 공동양육을 위한 여건이 갖추어졌다고 볼 수 있는 경우에만 가능하다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In the case of divorce in court, designating both parents as joint custodians of the child may be regarded as possible only where, upon comprehensively considering whether the parents are prepared to accept joint custody and whether there is any significant difference between them in their values regarding child-rearing, whether the parents live close to each other and the child-rearing environments are similar, so that economic and temporal losses to the child are small and there is no problem in adapting to the environment, and whether the child has the rational and emotional coping capacity to accept the situation of joint custody, and the like, it can be regarded that the conditions for joint custody are in place.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천가정법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon Family Court, collegiate panel.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
자녀가 공동양육의 상황을 받아들일 이성적·정서적 대응능력을 갖추었는지 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 공동양육을 위한 여건이 갖추어졌다고 볼 수 있는 경우에만 가능하다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
whether the child has the rational and emotional coping capacity to accept the situation of joint custody and the like is comprehensively considered, and only where it can be regarded that the conditions for joint custody are in place must it be possible.
Factors
- 미성년인 자녀의 성별과 연령, 그에 대한 부모의 애정과 양육의사의 유무는 물론
- 양육에 필요한 경제적 능력의 유무, 부와 모가 제공하려는 양육방식의 내용과 합리성·적합성 및 상호 간의 조화 가능성, 부 또는 모와 미성년인 자녀 사이의 친밀도, 미성년인 자녀의 의사 등의 모든 요소를 종합적으로 고려하여
- 부모가 공동양육을 받아들일 준비가 되어 있고 양육에 대한 가치관에서 현저한 차이가 없는지
- 자녀가 공동양육의 상황을 받아들일 이성적·정서적 대응능력을 갖추었는지
- 현재로서는 갑과 을이 가까운 장래에 서로 의견을 조율하여 공동양육과 그 방법에 대하여 서로 원만하게 협력할 것을 기대하기는 어려워 보이며
Unofficial English translation
• not only the minor child's gender and age, and the existence or absence of the parents' affection for the child and their willingness to raise the child, but also
• all factors, comprehensively considered, including the existence or absence of the economic capacity necessary for raising the child, the content and reasonableness and suitability of the child-rearing methods each of the father and mother intends to provide and the possibility of harmony between them, the degree of closeness between the father or mother and the minor child, and the wishes of the minor child,
• whether the parents are prepared to accept joint custody and whether there is any significant difference between them in their values regarding child-rearing,
• whether the child has the rational and emotional coping capacity to accept the situation of joint custody,
• as matters stand, it appears difficult to expect that A and B will, in the near future, coordinate their opinions and cooperate smoothly with each other regarding joint custody and its method,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2008. 5. 8. 선고 2008므380 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2008Meu380 decided May 8, 2008
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2008. 5. 8. 선고 2008므380 판결, 대법원 2013. 12. 26. 선고 2013므3383, 3390 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How much weight should the minor child's own wishes carry when the parents are equally able to provide care but cannot agree on child-rearing methods?
A remand judgment that sets a single custodian and a visitation schedule for these parents will show how the standard is applied on the record. Any amendment to Article 837 of the Civil Act or Article 909(4) and (5) on joint custody, or a later Supreme Court decision on designating both parents as joint custodians, calls for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How much weight should the minor child's own wishes carry when the parents are equally able to provide care but cannot agree on child-rearing methods?” vs Independent “Which parent should be designated as the child's sole custodian on remand?”
Primary asks how much weight the child's wishes carry when both parents are capable, while independent asks which parent should be the sole custodian on remand.
재판상 이혼의 경우 부모 모두를 자녀의 공동양육자로 지정하는 것은 부모가 공동양육을 받아들일 준비가 되어 있고 양육에 대한 가치관에서 현저한 차이가 없는지, 부모가 서로 가까운 곳에 살고 있고 양육환경이 비슷하여 자녀에게 경제적·시간적 손실이 적고 환경 적응에 문제가 없는지, 자녀가 공동양육의 상황을 받아들일 이성적·정서적 대응능력을 갖추었는지 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 공동양육을 위한 여건이 갖추어졌다고 볼 수 있는 경우에만 가능하다고 보아야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Incheon Family Court, in its judgment of 26 October 2018 (2018Reu10768), recognised that joint custody brings economic and time loss and possible harm to the child, but held that naming both parents as joint custodians was preferable, so that the child would feel both motherhood and fatherhood and grow healthy and balanced without leaning to either side. It set a weekly rotation: the plaintiff to care for the child from 17:00 each Sunday to 17:00 each Friday, the defendant from 17:00 each Friday to 17:00 each Sunday, and ordered the parents to open a joint bank account, with the plaintiff paying KRW 300,000 and the defendant KRW 900,000 each month until the day before the child reached majority.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court reversed. On the facts fixed below, both parents had asked throughout to be named sole custodian, so, as things stood, it appeared hard to expect that they would coordinate their views and cooperate smoothly on joint custody and its method in the near future, and even if they could consult fully on what the arrangement required, that would not appear to contribute greatly to reducing the child's economic and time loss and emotional instability from moving between the parents' residences and facing two different physical environments. Naming one custodian with visitation rights for the other would largely achieve the aim of joint custody, so the judgment below misunderstood the law on designating a custodian. On the joint account, the Court held that the method had to be examined again with the designation of custodian, noting that the court should also check whether such a method is feasible in practice and institutionally, and that ordering a joint account between parents in open hostility who had agreed nothing about child-rearing was likely to become a continuing source of dispute.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which it can be seen that the conditions for joint custody are in place, weighing the parents' readiness, their similar views and environments, and the child's capacity to accept the arrangement.
- A divorce obtained by agreement rather than by judgment, since the conditions the Court laid down govern designating both parents as joint custodians in a contested divorce.
- A question of child-rearing expense alone, where the Court's ground for reversing was that the joint-custody premise could not stand.
Record verification notes
Set the parents' own claims throughout the proceedings against the joint-custody premise, since the Court relied on both asking to be sole custodian. Then check where each parent lives, whether the child is at school, and what the two parents have said about how they would consult. Finally confirm which version of Article 837 and Article 909(4) and (5) of the Civil Act and Article 2(1)(ii)(b) of the Family Litigation Act the file was decided under.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 부모의 이혼으로 부모 중 누구를 미성년인 자녀의 양육자로 지정할 것인지 판단할 때 고려하여야 할 사항 [2] 재판상 이혼하는 부모 모두를 자녀의 공동양육자로 지정하는 것이 가능한 경우 [3] 재판상 이혼을 하는 갑과 을 중 누구를 그들의 자녀인 병의 양육자로 지정할 것인지 문제 된 사안에서, 갑과 을을 병의 공동양육자로 지정하고 공동양육의 방법을 정한 원심의 판단에는 양육자 지정에 관한 법리오해 등 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Matters to be considered when determining which parent shall be designated as the custodian of a minor child upon the parents' divorce [2] Cases in which it is possible to designate both parents divorcing in court as joint custodians of the child [3] A case in which, in a matter where the question arose as to which of A and B, divorcing in court, should be designated as the custodian of their child C, the judgment of the court below designating A and B as joint custodians of C and determining the method of joint custody was held to involve errors including a misapprehension of legal principles concerning the designation of a custodian
Summary of the holding
[1] 자녀의 양육은 부모의 권리이자 의무로서 미성년인 자녀의 복지에 직접적인 영향을 미친다. 따라서 부모가 이혼하는 경우에 미성년인 자녀의 양육자를 정할 때에는, 미성년인 자녀의 성별과 연령, 그에 대한 부모의 애정과 양육의사의 유무는 물론, 양육에 필요한 경제적 능력의 유무, 부와 모가 제공하려는 양육방식의 내용과 합리성·적합성 및 상호 간의 조화 가능성, 부 또는 모와 미성년인 자녀 사이의 친밀도, 미성년인 자녀의 의사 등의 모든 요소를 종합적으로 고려하여, 미성년인 자녀의 성장과 복지에 가장 도움이 되고 적합한 방향으로 판단하여야 한다. [2] 재판상 이혼의 경우 부모 모두를 자녀의 공동양육자로 지정하는 것은 부모가 공동양육을 받아들일 준비가 되어 있고 양육에 대한 가치관에서 현저한 차이가 없는지, 부모가 서로 가까운 곳에 살고 있고 양육환경이 비슷하여 자녀에게 경제적·시간적 손실이 적고 환경 적응에 문제가 없는지, 자녀가 공동양육의 상황을 받아들일 이성적·정서적 대응능력을 갖추었는지 등을 종합적으로 고려하여 공동양육을 위한 여건이 갖추어졌다고 볼 수 있는 경우에만 가능하다고 보아야 한다. [3] 재판상 이혼을 하는 갑과 을 중 누구를 그들의 자녀인 병의 양육자로 지정할 것인지 문제 된 사안에서, 갑과 을은 계속하여 공동양육이 아니라 자신을 단독 친권자 및 양육자로 지정하여 줄 것을 청구하였고, 현재로서는 갑과 을이 가까운 장래에 서로 의견을 조율하여 공동양육과 그 방법에 대하여 서로 원만하게 협력할 것을 기대하기는 어려워 보이며, 설령 갑과 을이 향후 병을 공동양육하는 과정에서 필요한 사항을 충분히 협의할 수 있게 되더라도 이것이 공동양육을 통하여 갑과 을의 거주지를 오가면서 부모 각각의 양육에 대한 결정에 따르게 되고 서로 다른 물리적 환경에 처하게 될 병의 경제적·시간적 손실과 정서적 불안정을 감소시키는 데 크게 기여할 것으로 보이지도 않을 뿐만 아니라, 오히려 일방에 대한 양육자 지정과 상대방에 대한 면접교섭을 통해서도 공동양육자 지정을 통해 달성하고자 한 목적을 대부분 달성할 수 있을 것으로 보이는데도, 갑과 을을 병의 공동양육자로 지정하고 공동양육의 방법을 정한 원심의 판단에는 양육자 지정에 관한 법리오해 등 잘못이 있다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천가정법원 합의부에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon Family Court, collegiate panel.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제837조 [2] 민법 제837조, 제909조 제4항, 제5항, 가사소송법 제2조 제1항 제2호 (나)목 [3] 민법 제837조, 제909조 제4항, 제5항, 가사소송법 제2조 제1항 제2호 (나)목
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger