The former customary law concerning the time when the father or mother who was in an internal relationship obtains the status as the mother of a child born within 200 days after the marriage report;

According to the old customs of our country, even if the date of birth of a person who was born in his/her living together without filing a marriage report, and the period between the date of birth of his/her parent and the date of birth is less than 200 days, such person shall naturally obtain the status as the guardian of his/her parent at the same time of birth.

Plaintiff

Ansan-young

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na144 delivered on April 4, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

First of all, we examine the grounds of appeal for the plaintiff's Kim Training.

(1) As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the court below held that even if a person who actually married and living together, but only the report of marriage was late and calculated as if he was born within 200 days from the date of the report of marriage, if only the evidence is evident, the father’s relationship between the father and the father shall be deemed to occur. However, this provision is based on Article 855(2) of the current Civil Act. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the so-called provision concerning quasi-determination as to a child born out of wedlock, which is the only system for presumption of paternity, and thus, it would be a trial to presume father’s paternity, unless it is in accordance with Article 844 of the current Civil Act, which can be viewed as the only system for presumption of paternity.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, although the plaintiff and the non-party were born between them on November 29, 1927 and January 15, 1929, the plaintiff and the non-party were born on their family register, they should be viewed to be 1923 years since they started living through marriage between the plaintiff and the non-party, and it is clear that the defendant's birth was 12.15 years of negative records in 1927. However, if the defendant's birth was made only on the family register due to the fact that the marriage report between the plaintiff and the non-party was delayed, it is certain that the defendant was born within 20 days of November 29, 1927 from the date on which the plaintiff and the non-party were married. Thus, as to the existence of the parent-child relationship between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, it should be based on the standards for the Japanese Civil Law, not on the presumption that the parent's birth was made within 0 days of birth, and even if the parent's birth was not confirmed, it should not be confirmed.

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 3, if the court below's arguments were to be followed, it would result in a result that the child born after 200 days from the date of establishment of the marriage would be presumed as the father's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's wife.

However, the court below ruled that it is not possible to recognize the plaintiff's act of the face-to-face scar, which was the plaintiff's wife, through the cooking of legitimate evidence, and therefore there is no reason to argue that there is such a fact, and the argument also corresponds to an attack against the contents of old customs of the Republic of Korea, such as the former part.

(3) As to the ground of appeal No. 4, as seen in the judgment of the court below, the defendant was born while the plaintiff was living together with the plaintiff, and even if the defendant is recognized as the plaintiff's child born out of wedlock, the defendant cannot be considered as the plaintiff's child born out of wedlock. Therefore, before the plaintiff's recognition, the defendant's birth should be deemed as not the plaintiff's natural father's child. However, since the defendant's birth report should be deemed as a substitute, the plaintiff's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's mother who was the

However, as seen above, it is reasonable to view that the relationship between the original defendant may occur even if the original defendant does not go through the plaintiff's recognition procedure in the old custom of Korea, as mentioned above, if it is the same as the original case in the old custom of Korea. Therefore, this essay shall be discarded.

Next, we examine the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff's agent.

(1) As to the ground of appeal No. 1, as to the ground of appeal on this point, the Plaintiff’s agent’s ground of appeal as seen above is invoked.

(2) As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, with regard to the fact that there was a salvous relationship between the Plaintiff’s deceased father-salky and the Defendant’s mother’s mother’s mother’s mother’s salvous relationship, the court below’s first instance witness’s salvous order, salvous calculation, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Sick-kick, Sick-kick, Park Jong-kick, Park Ho-kick, Park Ho, Park Jong-k, Park Jong-k,

However, as seen above, since the court below's evidence cooking is not recognized as unlawful, it is not reasonable to discuss it.

While the court below, among the arguments, omitted the decision on the witness's testimony, it did not seem to have the witness's straw, even if the witness's studio does not appear. If the studio is a clerical error in the vehicle in which the witness's studio was a witness, it does not appear to have rejected the witness's testimony at the court below in light of the context before

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court Na-Ba (Presiding Judge) Na-ri (Presiding Judge)