[Breaking] Supreme Court Plenary Session: "Statute of Limitations for Past Child Support Claims Begins When Child Reaches Adulthood"

Even without concrete claims established through parties' agreement or family court judgment,
statute of limitations proceeds
Change from previous view

On the 18th, the Supreme Court en banc upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss Ms. A's claim against her ex-husband for past child support payments dating back approximately 23 years from November 1993, when their son (51) became an adult, on the grounds that the statute of limitations had already expired. Ms. A had divorced her husband in 1984.

The court stated in its order, "The rehearing is dismissed. The costs of the rehearing shall be borne by the claimant."

The court premised its ruling by stating, "Unless a specific claim is established through the parties' agreement or a family court judgment, the statute of limitations for rights related to past child support does not run while the child is a minor and child-rearing continues, but begins to run from the time the child reaches adulthood and the child-rearing obligation ends."

However, regarding claims for past child support after the child has reached adulthood, the court clarified, "Once the child reaches adulthood and the child-rearing obligation ends, the statute of limitations for the right to claim specific past child support payments, established through the parties' agreement or a family court judgment, begins to run from the time the child becomes an adult."

Furthermore, the court stated, "Decisions such as the 2011 Supreme Court ruling, which held that the statute of limitations does not run on rights related to past child support until a specific claim is established even after the child reaches adulthood and the child-rearing obligation ends, are hereby overruled to the extent they conflict with this decision."

By changing the existing view on the statute of limitations for claims of past child support, the Supreme Court found no issue with the lower court's decision to dismiss the claimant's child support claim against her ex-spouse on the grounds that the 10-year statute of limitations had already passed.

Justice Kwon Young-jun filed a separate opinion, while five justices?No Jeong-hee, Kim Sang-hwan, Noh Tae-ak, Oh Kyung-mi, and Shin Sook-hee?filed dissenting opinions.