The duty to support the biological mother of a child born out of wedlock

Since recognition takes effect retroactively from the time of birth of the child, when the father of the child born outside of wedlock is recognized as the father's duty to support the child, although the father's duty to support is also the time of birth of the child, the father's duty to support the child is also the duty to support the child. Therefore, since the mother has a duty to support the child's child outside of wedlock, it is nothing more than the performance of his duty to support the child's child. Therefore, it is unfair that the mother who is merely performing his duty to support the child's child's negligence claims the child support for the child's child.

Article 974 of the Civil Act; Article 913 of the Civil Act; Article 909(3) of the Civil Act

Claimant

appellees

Seoul High Court Decision 64Ra9 delivered on December 22, 1964, decided December 22, 1964

The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the claimant is examined.

The purport of the original judgment is retroactive to the time of birth of the child consciousness, so when the father of a child born out of wedlock is recognized, the father's duty of support also exists from the time of birth of the child consciousness. However, since the father's duty of support is also the father's duty of self-support, the claimant also has the duty of support as the mother of the person other than the claimant's child. Therefore, even if the claimant with the ability of support supports the person other than himself at his own expense, the claimant's duty of support is merely a mere performance of his duty of support. Therefore, the claimant's claim for child support for the past child support for the child who is merely the claimant's father's father, and even before it is recognized, the respondent's duty of support can be deemed to have been in an uncertain state. It is merely a statement of the fact that the defendant had the duty of support even before it is recognized, and there is no reason for the argument in the original judgment.

The second ground of appeal No. 2

In the grounds of appeal No. 2, as seen in the ground of appeal, it is not necessary to clarify the date of birth of the person other than the claim, unless the claim for the support fee against the respondent in this case is justified, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be erroneous in the incomplete hearing as pointed out in the paper of appeal, and therefore,

Therefore, the appeal is groundless and dismissed. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro