Defendant B (n)

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

A. The non-party deceased C (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") and the non-party D were the legal couple who completed the marriage report on June 10, 1971, and they completed the marriage report on June 11, 1987.

B. In the column of father (the father) of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s family relation register, the deceased and the mother (the mother) column are registered respectively.

C. On February 17, 2014, the Deceased died, and ** University** * ○○ Hospital (hereinafter “○○ Hospital”) received medical treatment due to symptoms, such as serious weather, and outpatients before the Deceased’s death, and on February 10, 2014, the Deceased’s son’s son was born during the process of inserting the Deceased’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.

D. According to the results of each genetic test conducted between the Plaintiff and the father and the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s father and the Plaintiff, who were the deceased’s son, requested the △△△, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant, there was a result that the parental relation between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was established, and that the parental relation between the Plaintiff’s father and the Defendant was not established.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 7 and 8, Evidence Nos. 10 through 12 (including branch numbers) and images; the blood and results of the request for genetic test to each Seoul University of this Court; the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination

A. (1) With respect to the above legal action against the deceased, the defendant was legally married with the deceased and gave birth to the defendant during the period of marriage. The defendant asserts that denial of paternity between the deceased and the defendant is unlawful. (2) Article 844 of the Civil Code does not apply to the case where the plaintiff was born to the deceased and his wife's wife's wife's wife's wife's wife's wife's wife's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's *.

Furthermore, as to whether the identity of the deceased’s son who was delivered by ○○ Hospital and the Plaintiff’s son who requested the △○ Hospital, is recognized, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the foregoing facts and evidence: ① one abandoned child in the process of being treated immediately before the deceased’s death, and it was delivered to the Plaintiff; ② the above son’s son’s name and treatment number (******) on the date of delivery (the Defendant’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her.

B. Judgment on the merits

According to the above facts and circumstances, it is apparent that there is no natural relationship between the deceased and the defendant, and the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.