2. The plaintiff 1's appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against Plaintiff 1.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on June 27, 1990, the court below presumed that the non-party 1 was liable to compensate the defendant for the property or mental injury the deceased was caused by the occurrence of the above accident, and on the premise that the non-party 1 was liable to compensate for the damage caused by the deceased's accident. Based on these evidences, the non-party 1 gave birth to the plaintiff 2 on June 29, 1989, but did not report the marriage with the plaintiff 1 or report the non-party 2 on the birth of the accident. At the time of the accident, the non-party 2, his mother, was in the status of an heir. Accordingly, upon the occurrence of the above accident, the defendant was dismissed from the judgment of the above non-party 2 on July 6, 1990 on the part of the deceased's claim for compensation for damages caused by the above accident, and the defendant was not entitled to the above non-party 2's claim for compensation for damages before the judgment of the plaintiff 16.

2. Article 860 of the Civil Act provides that the retroactive effect of recognition is limited by the right already acquired by a third party. In light of the purport of Article 1014 of the Civil Act that limits the scope of a third party under Article 860 by stipulating that a person who becomes a co-inheritors has the right to claim payment of the value equivalent to his/her share of inheritance after the commencement of inheritance or by the confirmation of a judgment, and that the scope of a third party under Article 860 is limited, in cases where a child born out of wedlock is recognized as his/her natural father by a suit of recognition after the father's death, the lineal ascendant or sibling, etc. of the inheritee, who is subordinate to the deceased, shall be deemed to retroactively lose the right of inheritance he/she acquired along with the appearance of the deceased (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da1739, Feb. 26, 197). It shall not be deemed that it is included in the vested right of a third party that is protected by the retroactive effect of recognition pursuant to the proviso of Article 860 of the Civil Act.

In this case, if the non-party 2, who is his mother on the family register at the time of the death of the deceased non-party 1 as properly determined by the court below, was a sole inheritor, but later, the plaintiff 2 was recognized as the natural father of the above deceased by the action of affiliation, the non-party 2, a subordinate heir to the above plaintiff, retroactively lose his right to inheritance, and instead, the above plaintiff's right to claim damages of this case was acquired by the above plaintiff's legitimate right to inheritance, and the original right of inheritance acquired by the non-party 2, who is the so-called expression inheritor, cannot be deemed as a third party's right to obtain rights to be protected by the restriction on the retroactive effect of affiliation pursuant to the proviso of Article 860 of the Civil Act.

As long as the inheritance relationship following the death of the above deceased was eliminated as above, even if the non-party 2 reached an agreement on the issue of compensation on the premise that he succeeded to the claim for damages of the above deceased before the judgment of recognition became final and conclusive, it cannot be effective as to the above plaintiff, who is a legitimate inheritance right holder, since it was an agreement on the inherited property unless a person who has no right to inheritance, as long as he did not have the right to inheritance, and therefore, the above plaintiff can exercise the right to claim damages of this case against the defendant legally, notwithstanding

The lower court, upon the formation of the above agreement, may be deemed to have set aside to the purport that the Defendant is placed in the status of a third party as referred to in the proviso of Article 860 of the Civil Act, but it cannot be deemed that the Defendant cannot be deemed as a person who newly acquired the right by the disposal of the deceased’s damage claim, which is inherited property, and thus, the lower

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s partial repayment of the Defendant’s damage compensation obligation against Nonparty 2 may be deemed to constitute a quasi-Possessor of the claim as an apparent inheritor, there is room to deem that the Defendant is valid depending on the good faith and negligence of Nonparty 2 with respect to Nonparty 2’s inheritance right. In such a case, the said Plaintiff can only claim the return of unjust enrichment against Nonparty 2 within the scope of the amount of reimbursement.

As a result, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the limitation of retroactive effect of recognition, on the ground that the effect of the Defendant’s agreement on the right to claim damages between Nonparty 2 before the judgment of recognition became final and conclusive is not affected by the above recognition. Accordingly, the court below erred in matters of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the limitation of retroactive effect of recognition. Thus, the part on the argument of Plaintiff 2 pointing this out is justified.

In addition, as determined by the court below, the plaintiff 1 is only in the status of the spouse in a de facto marital relationship with the deceased as determined by the court below, and apart from the fact that he can exercise his own right to claim consolation money, it is clear that there is no reason to see the above plaintiff's appeal on the premise that he acquired the right to claim compensation of this case by inheritance.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Plaintiff 2 shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. The appeal by Plaintiff 1 shall be dismissed 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 on the bench.