[인지][집35(1)특,367;공1987.3.1.(795),308]
Effect of judicial compromise to waive the right to claim affiliation
The right to claim recognition can not be effective even if it cannot be waived as an exclusive right to the personal relationship of the principal, and even if it has been renounced, such compromise has no effect even if the compromise to waive the right to claim recognition has been conducted in court and it has been indicated in the provisions of the compromise.
Article 855 of the Civil Act, Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 81Meu10 Decided March 9, 1982
Claimant 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
As the respondent is a legal guardian, the legal guardian's guardian's representative
Seoul High Court Decision 85Reu100 decided August 30, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the respondent's assertion that the claim for recognition of this case conflicts with res judicata, the court below rejected the defendant's claim on October 17, 1964, on the ground that the claimant's claim for recognition of the case and his/her other spouse's claim for recognition and support fees of the Seoul Family Court 64D126 against the respondent, the respondent shall pay 200,000 won to the claimant and the other party to the claim, and the respondent shall waive his/her claim for recognition and support fees of the claimant (at that time, the claimant was a minor and the other party to the claim was his/her legal representative). However, the waiver of the claim for recognition is not allowed as a disposition of the right to identity of a person other than marriage, so the above reconciliation that the claimant's other party to the claim has decided to waive his/her claim for recognition of the claimant's claim for recognition has no effect.
On the other hand, the right to claim recognition cannot be waived as a right to the other party's personal relationship and can not take effect even if it was renounced (see Supreme Court Decision 81Meu10, Mar. 9, 1982). Thus, the court below's decision that the settlement, even if the other party's right to claim recognition, is judicially conducted by the claimant's right to claim recognition, and even if it was indicated in the settlement clause, it is just in the court below's decision that the other party's right to claim recognition is not effective, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.
Therefore, the appeal is 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.
Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)