Whether the period of filing a lawsuit against denial of paternity (Article 847 of the Civil Act) is also applicable to the lawsuit against denial of paternity.

The claim of denial of paternity is limited to a child who is presumed to be the father of the child and is born when the father and the mother are born due to special circumstances. Thus, this claim against such child is not the claim of denial of paternity (Article 846), but it is not the claim of denial of paternity (Article 865). Thus, the limitation of the period of filing a lawsuit (Article 847 of the Civil Act) is not applicable.

Articles 844 and 846 of the Civil Act; Article 847 of the Civil Act; Article 865 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant-Appellee Co., Ltd. (Law No. 4291, May 14, 1959) (Article 846(1)607 of the Civil Act, Article 5671 of the Civil Act, Article 7 citizen 101) and Article 71Meu13 decided July 27, 1971

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 4293 Masan33 delivered on April 1, 201

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant confirms that he is not a person born between the plaintiff and the non-party 1.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant through the first and second trials.

The plaintiff is seeking a judgment of the Dong branch and the defendant special representative is seeking a judgment of dismissal of public prosecution.

The plaintiff's actual statement is a short-term marriage with the non-party 1 on June 29, 4268, and gave birth to five women during the period of living together with the non-party 1. On August 1, 4285, the marital relationship was terminated due to the marriage between the plaintiff and the non-party 1, and the defendant was registered as the head of the plaintiff on February 21, 4284 under the family register within a short-term period of 4276, but the wife was living in his place of work or business relations and was separated from the non-party 4, and the plaintiff was living in his family register for a period of 8 years since around 4279, and the plaintiff was living in his family register as the non-party 1's husband's non-party 4 and the non-party 2's claim for the denial of the marital relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party 2 and the non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's allegation.

Based on the method of proof, the plaintiff submitted the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the court below, and invoked the result of the testimony of the non-party Nos. 3, 4, 5, and non-party Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the trial witness of the court below and the result of the verification of the birth of the party members. The defendant special representative invoked the testimony of the non-party Nos. 1, 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the court below, and the formation of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the court below

According to Article 84 of the Civil Act as to the above defendant's special representative's birth, the plaintiff's wife was presumed to be father's wife during the marriage. According to Article 846 of the same Act, the plaintiff's claim for non-party 2's birth against the non-party 8's husband's non-party 4 and the non-party 8's non-party 6's non-party 8's non-party 6's non-party 8's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 8's non-party 6's non-party 8's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 8's non-party 6's non-party 8's children.

Judges Kang Jung-hee (Presiding Judge) Kim Yong-sik