Plaintiff (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Choi Sung-ia et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

May 13, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

It is confirmed that there is no parental relation between the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Nonparty reported a marriage on June 2, 1986, but reported a divorce on March 17, 1989. The Plaintiff and the Nonparty reported a marriage again on November 27, 1991, but the divorce judgment became final and conclusive on September 12, 2012.

B. The Nonparty, as a legal representative of the minor Defendant, filed a judgment demanding affiliation against the Plaintiff, Daejeon District Court No. 86d409. On October 27, 1986, the said court rendered a judgment on October 27, 1986 that the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant, and the said judgment was finalized on November 28, 1986.

C. On December 6, 1986, the defendant was registered as the natural father of the plaintiff in the family register according to the above final judgment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is registered as the father of the plaintiff's family relation register, but the defendant does not have a parental relation between the plaintiff and the defendant.

B. Determination

In accordance with the provision of Article 865 of the Civil Code, the action of confirmation of paternity, the action of denial of paternity by the father of the court, the action of denial of paternity against the child, the objection against recognition, the claim for affiliation, and the action of confirmation of the existence or absence of paternity for other reasons that do not fall under the invalidation of recognition.

As to the instant case, the paternity relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was formed by a judicial acknowledgement, and seeking confirmation of the absence thereof does not constitute the subject of a litigation for confirmation of denial or existence of paternity as prescribed by Article 865 of the Civil Act (in the case of recognition by judgment, only a dispute can be raised as a litigation for a retrial against the judgment). Thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it does not meet the requirements for litigation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is inappropriate because it does not meet the requirements of lawsuit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jin-ok