2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The following facts can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and no other counter-proof evidence exists.

A. On November 23, 1981, the Plaintiff and the Nonparty, after completing the marriage report, were married to the husband and wife, and was divorced on October 7, 2002.

B. The defendant was born on May 4, 1996 between the plaintiff and the non-party, and was registered as a person of marriage between the plaintiff and the non-party on the plaintiff's family register upon the plaintiff's report as his own person.

C. However, the defendant was born not by the plaintiff's sperm but by artificial insemination after the non-party delivered another person's sperm at the medical foundation on August 8, 1995 (name omitted).

D. After the plaintiff and the non-party have been divorced, the defendant lives with the non-party.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Nonparty, who was granted the sperm of another person to the medical foundation (title omitted), was pregnant with the Defendant, and was born between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff believed this, and reported the birth of the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s own family register on October 31, 2006. The Plaintiff became aware of the foregoing facts, which led to the instant lawsuit.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The plaintiff knew of the fact that he cannot have a child because he was an unborn baby, and consented to the non-party having a natural consciousness through artificial insemination by receiving the sperm of another person. Since the defendant was born through artificial insemination, the plaintiff may not bring an action of denial of paternity.

(c) Markets:

(1) The fact that the Defendant was born through artificial insemination, not by the Plaintiff’s sperm but by the Nonparty’s sperm granted by another person at the Medical Foundation on August 8, 1995 (Name omitted) is as seen earlier.

(2) However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 2 written evidence, the plaintiff visited the medical foundation (title omitted) as the non-party and consented on July 14, 1995 that it is impossible to be pregnant between the plaintiff and the non-party, with the knowledge that it was impossible to be pregnant due to the result of the medical examination by visiting the medical foundation like the non-party. The non-party consented to the artificial insemination by receiving the sperm of another person on July 14, 1995. The non-party decided to normally raise the born by artificial insemination, to have all responsibility including moral, social, and legal issues, and thereafter, the defendant born through artificial insemination,

(3) According to the above facts, even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not establish a father-child relationship by blood transfusion, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff consented to the Nonparty, who was the wife, to give birth to the Defendant through artificial insemination and to assume all legal responsibilities including legal issues, thereby recognizing the Defendant as his own person. Therefore, denying the natural father-child relationship of the Defendant again by having divorced from the Nonparty is contrary to the good faith principle.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is based on the premise that the defendant may bring an action of denial of paternity, is without merit, is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Had delivery