Whether the biological mother can directly claim the support fees of the minor himself/herself against his/her biological father (negative)

In order for the biological mother to claim the support fee to the biological father, there must be a specific cause for the claim that there is an agreement on the rearing of the minor, and the biological mother has merely brought up his/her dependent, and even in the future, even if it is evident that it is an intention to bring up his/her dependent, such reason alone cannot directly claim the support fee to the biological father, regardless of whether the support fee is a law or in the future.

Article 837 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Meu17 and 18 decided Jun. 22, 1976 (Article 974(5) of the Civil Code, Article 974(5) of the Civil Code, Section 1585, Section 11254, Section 24 Gong132 Gong9278 decided Jun. 11, 1985 (Article 837(5) of the Civil Code, Section 837(5) of the Civil Code, Section 1503 Doz.332 91Gong75797 Decided June 11, 1985)

Claimant

appellees

Seoul Family Court (87div2441 Judgment) of the first instance court

The original adjudication shall be revoked.

The claimant's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the claimant in all of the first and second instances.

The respondent shall pay 100,000 won as of the last day of each month to the claimant from October 1982 until the claim other than the claimant and the respondent (on March 31, 197) reaches the age of majority.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent and a declaration of provisional execution.

The same shall apply to the order.

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2 (No dispute over the establishment of the court below's evidence Nos. 1-2 (No. 1), investigator of the court below's judgment, Kim Byung-kick's statement (except for the part not believed below) and the whole purport of oral argument, the appellant and the defendant, who were legally married couple who reported the marriage on Nov. 14, 1963, delivered to five married children under their names. On Apr. 21, 1982, the claimant and the respondent decided to divorce and reported the divorce on Apr. 29, 1982. After reporting the marriage with the non-claim No. 2 on Sept. 6, 1982, the respondent may recognize the fact that one South and North has given birth between them, and there is no counter-

As the cause of the instant claim, when an agreement is reached between the respondent and the defendant, the claimant shall have to rear 1 (1,00,000 won for each month until the time when the agreement is reached between the claimant and the defendant, but the claimant agreed to pay 1,00,000 won for each month until the female reaches the age of majority, but only received the support allowance by September 1, 1982, and thereafter did not pay the support allowance so far thereafter. As such, the claimant sought payment of 1,00,000 won for each month from October 1982 to the time when the non-claim 1 reaches the age of majority, so it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the defendant and the non-claim 3 of the court below regarding the entry of the investigation report and the testimony of the non-claim 1 of the witness at the court below, and there is no evidence that there was no dispute between the claimant and the non-party 1 of the support allowance and the non-party 1 of the agreement.

In this case, in which the claimant claims the defendant for the support fee against the non-party 1, there must be specific grounds for the claim that the mother has an agreement on the rearing of the minor in order to claim the support fee against the defendant's living father, and the mother who is the claimant has brought up the non-party 1 who is his/her father, and even in the future, it is clear that the reason is the intention to bring up the child in the future, such reason alone does not have the ability to support the defendant, and it is not possible to directly claim the support fee to the defendant who is the father of the child, regardless of whether the support fee is in the past or in the future.

If so, the claimant's claim for the support fee is without merit, and thus, the original adjudication, which differs from this theory, is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is with merit, so the plaintiff's claim is dismissed by cancelling the original adjudication, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 9 of the Family Trial Act, Article 13 of the Personnel Litigation Act, Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of lawsuit.

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)