A. Whether mental suffering of a person due to nonperformance of the duty to support the father is special damage;

(b) Claim for consolation money for mental suffering caused by a litigation seeking confirmation of the existence of an unfair parent-child relationship, which was withdrawn;

A. Since the right to receive support is a kind of personal property right, it is reasonable to view that the general mental suffering related to the failure to meet the right is restored by the realization of the right to property. Mental damage which is irrecoverable due to the failure to perform the duty to support to the father is damage due to special circumstances.

B. The mental suffering suffered by a person who was unfairly brought a lawsuit shall be restored by ordinary winnings, and the irrecoverable mental suffering shall be deemed to be damage due to special circumstances. Therefore, in a case where the lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the parent-child relationship against a father is terminated as the withdrawal of the lawsuit, consolation money for the mental suffering of the person caused by the lawsuit shall be allowed only when the plaintiff knew or could have known the special situation.

(a) Articles 393, 974(b), 763, and 865 of the Civil Act;

Claimant 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Seoul High Court Decision 81Reu104 delivered on October 19, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that (1) since the right to receive support is a kind of personal property right similar to the claim, it is reasonable to view that the general mental suffering related to the non-performance of the right is restored by the realization of the right to property. Since compensation for damages which cannot be recovered due to non-performance of support (the period during which the mother supported) to the claimant of the denied respondent is damages due to special circumstances, there is no evidence to recognize that the respondent knew or could have foreseen special circumstances, and there is no evidence to support that the defendant's action against the claimant and the defendant's action against the non-living claimant against the non-living claimant was caused by harassment, and there is no evidence to find that the defendant's mental suffering was recovered by ordinary winning and that the mental suffering which the plaintiff suffered was not recovered even if he won, and there is no mental suffering that cannot be recovered due to the winning judgment is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-existence of the above special rules or there is no evidence to find that there was no error of law as to the non-existence of the claim.

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

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)