The case holding that in a case where the husband reported the birth of a person born between a woman and another woman on the family register as if he was born between the wife and the wife on the family register, the action for confirmation of paternity and the existence of paternity brought by the mother of the wife after the wife's death does not violate the principle of

Articles 865 and 2 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

1. We confirm that there is no parental relation between the Defendants and the deceased Nonparty.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 2, 2, and 3 and each statement of witness 1-2, the defendants are registered on the family register with father and mother of the deceased non-party 1, but in fact, the non-party 1 entered into an internal relationship with non-party 2 and filed a report of the birth of the defendants between the non-party 1 and the deceased non-party on the family register, and reported that the defendants were generated between the non-party 1 and the deceased non-party on the family register, thereby recognizing that the defendants were registered differently from the actual facts in the family register as above.

In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s mother and Nonparty 1 were unable to seek confirmation of the non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party-1 and the non-party-1 was living together with the non-party-1, and the Plaintiff, his mother, who was the non-party-1, did not appear to have been living together with the non-party-1, and the non-party-1, did not appear to have been living together with the non-party 2 for the non-party-1, and thus, the non-party-1 and the non-party-2, who had been living together with the non-party-1, did not appear to have been aware of the non-party-1’s non-party-party-1’s non-party-party-1’s right to birth for the non-party-2’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party-2’s right to birth.

Then, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's claim of this case against the non-party's will should be dismissed because the non-party confirmed the defendants as his father before his birth. The plaintiff argued that the plaintiff's claim of this case against the non-party's will should be dismissed, and that the non-party reported the birth as the father of the non-party and confirmed it thereafter. However, the non-party 1 and 3's testimony in accordance with the defendants' assertion can not be deemed to have ratified the adoption in light of the facts that are difficult to believe and recognized earlier. Thus,

The defendants also claim that the plaintiff has no standing to be a party to the claim of this case, so the relatives under Article 777 of the Civil Act of 198 are entitled to file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the parent-child relationship only with the fact that such status has been established. Therefore, the defendants' above assertion has no merit.

The defendants also asserted that the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it was filed with the lapse of one year of exclusion period. However, the exclusion period of one year is applicable to the case where the party dies and files a lawsuit against the public prosecutor, and the lawsuit of this case filed against the defendants who are one of the parties who were alive by the plaintiff shall not be applicable to the lawsuit of this case

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case between the defendants and the deceased non-party seeking confirmation of the absence of parental relation is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-young