Article 865 (2) of the Civil Act shall apply to cases where a relative files a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence or absence of the paternity.

Article 865(2) of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case where the claimant, who is the mother of the claimant, is unable to bring an action against the public prosecutor to confirm the existence of a natural relationship with the deceased, who is the mother of the claimant, on the ground that he has a relationship of relatives.

Article 865(2) of the Civil Act, Articles 26 and 35 of the Personnel Litigation Act

October 13, 1981 Judgment, 80D60 delivered on October 13, 198

A

B

The appellant's appeal of this case shall be dismissed.

Trial costs shall be borne by the claimant.

It is confirmed that there is no denial of paternity between the respondent and the other party C.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent.

Even though the respondent was born between the network E such as the off-claimed network D, the claimant was registered as if they were born between the network C such as the off-claim D, so in order to correct the false entry of the family register, the respondent's child is seeking a judgment of denial or existence of paternity.

On the other hand, the claimant, who is the mother of the claimant, is unable to file a request for the same as the purport of the claim of this case with the prosecutor after the limitation period under Article 865(2) of the Civil Act has expired, and the appellant is claiming that the defendant files a request for the trial of this case under Article 26 of the Personnel Litigation Act on the ground that he/she has a family relation as the child of the defendant. According to the above argument, the claimant cannot be deemed to have a benefit in the lawsuit of this case on behalf of the respondent on the ground that he/she has a family relation as the child of the respondent, and there is no special relation with the respondent. Therefore, if the respondent cannot file a request for a trial after the limitation period has expired, the claimant as well as the party concerned cannot file a request for a trial pursuant to Article 865(2) of the Civil Act on the ground that he/she can not file a request for a trial on the ground that he/she has a family relation with the child of the defendant, and thus, he/she reaches an unreasonable result of the request for a stability of Article 865(2).

Therefore, the petitioner's request for a trial of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the costs of the trial are assessed against the petitioner and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yang Sung-sung(Presiding Judge)