[양육비ㆍ교육비][집29(2)민,38;공1981.7.15.(660) 13975]
Whether a person who raises and educates a child born out of wedlock shall return unjust enrichment to the natural father of the child born out of wedlock or request the reimbursement of expenses for office management (negative)
Even if the plaintiff, who is a third party, paid expenses incurred in raising and educating the defendant's child born out of wedlock, the actual defendant, as long as the defendant does not recognize the child born out of wedlock or is not regarded as the child born out of wedlock due to the marriage of his parents, is not legally obligated to support the child born out of wedlock, and therefore the defendant cannot be deemed to have made unjust enrichment due to the plaintiff's above act or managed the affairs
Articles 739 and 741 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Park Jae-in, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant
Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 78Na701 delivered on September 24, 1980
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.
Only when the actual father of a child born out of wedlock should be regarded as the child born out of wedlock due to the marriage between the parent and the father, and the legal effect of the child born out of wedlock, including the duty of support, takes place. With respect to the child born out of wedlock, there is no legal obligation to support the child, even though the father is in fact aware of the non-party's natural father. According to the records, there is only the fact that the report of the non-party's recognition of the non-party as the child of the defendant was made in the defendant's family register, such as the time of the original judgment, and there is no evidence to deem that the defendant was aware of the non-party or the non-party's legal parent-child relationship was formed through the court's nullity and the non-party's recognition of the non-party or the non-party's recognition of the non-party as the child born out of wedlock and education as the plaintiff's child born out of wedlock, it is difficult to view that the defendant who did not have legal obligation to support the child or that the plaintiff was administered the defendant's affairs.
Ultimately, all of the arguments are without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)