A. Whether a third party may bring an action for confirmation of the absence of paternity pursuant to Article 865 of the Civil Act and the relationship with Article 862 of the Civil Act

(b) If a third party files a lawsuit seeking confirmation of absence of paternity relationship, the person is entitled to file a petition for adjudication.

(c) The case holding that the disposition in the litigation seeking confirmation of the absence of paternity relation was improper to verify the factual relations;

(a) If the claimant was, before the death of the deceased Party A, who had a marital relationship with the claimant before the death of the deceased Party A and is entered in the family register as being in a marital relationship with the respondent, the claimant constitutes an interested person under this Article, and thus has the interest in the qualification of the party to

B. Even if an appellant falls under an interested party stipulated in Article 862 of this Act, it is merely a question about the eligibility of the claimant stipulated in this Article, and the main claim is not a lawsuit stipulated in Article 862 of this Act, but a claim under this Article seeking confirmation that there is no parental relation between the deceased and the respondent, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the claimant did not bring an action within one year.

C. In a claim for confirmation of denial or existence of paternity pursuant to this Article, one of the parents is not a claim for confirmation, but a third party with interest, not a claim for confirmation in the region.

If the denial of paternity is based on the premise that the denial of paternity was entered as if there was the denial of paternity even though there was no denial of paternity, both parties of the relationship may be eligible as the respondent, and if he/she dies on the other hand, only the surviving party may file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of paternity against the surviving party, and if both parents die, the lawsuit against the prosecutor may be brought against the deceased party.

Article 865 of the Civil Act, Article 862 of the Civil Act

Claimant

Appellant 1 et al.

Red support in the first instance court, Seoul High Court Decision 70Reu84 delivered on February 2, 1971

The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the ground of appeal 2-B(C) by the respondent

According to the purport of oral argument, a claimant has no dispute between the parties that he was in a marital relationship with the claimant before the death of the claimant who was not the claimant, and that he was recorded on the family register as he was in a mother and child relationship with the claimant who was the claimant before the death of the claimant, so the claimant constitutes an interested party as stipulated in Articles 865 and 862 of the Civil Act in filing the principal lawsuit and has the interest in filing the lawsuit. Even if the claimant falls under an interested party as stipulated in Article 862 of the Civil Act, it is merely an issue as to the eligibility of the claimant as stipulated in Article 865 of the Civil Act, but it is nothing more than an action as stipulated in Article 862 of the Civil Act, but it is also acknowledged that the claimant had no marital relationship with the claimant as stipulated in Article 865 of the Civil Act, and if it is acknowledged that the claimant had no marital relationship with the child within one year, it cannot be said that the claimant has already filed an action against the third party who was the claimant's legitimate interest in the other party's family register.

All arguments are without merit.

However, according to the purport of oral argument of the claimant ex officio, it is interpreted that a claimant does not seek a litigation for confirmation of absence of paternity (it is not a litigation for confirmation of absence of paternity under Article 865 of the Civil Act) between the claimant and the respondent (it is not a third party under Article 865 of the Civil Act), and that a lawsuit for confirmation of absence of paternity is brought between the claimant and the respondent as a third party under Article 865 of the Civil Act. In this case, even though the claimant is not the claimant outside of the network, even though the plaintiff was born between the deceased and the respondent and the respondent, even though the plaintiff was entered in the family register as if the plaintiff were born between the deceased and the respondent and the respondent, the respondent is not entitled to a trial, and it is merely an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the eligibility of a claimant for adjudication, which is a legitimate ground for appeal between the claimant and the non-existence of paternity relation between the claimant and the respondent, the claimant cannot be claimed as a claimant for adjudication.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 9 of the Family Trial Act, Articles 13 and 406 of the Personnel Litigation Act.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet