Whether the presumption of paternity of a child born during the marriage by the wife who has taken a mother's mother and found only once a year to find the father and the father's father.

The so-called presumption of paternity under Article 844(1) of the Civil Act can not be a ground for not subject to the above presumption of paternity solely on the ground that the wife is applied to both the husband and wife during the marriage, unless it is evident that the wife is unable to take the part of the father and wife due to lack of the agreement, such as whether the father and wife were living in a foreign country for a long time or actually divorced and live together with South and North Korea. Thus, the claimant has a relation with another woman after marriage with the plaintiff, and it was separate from the plaintiff at ordinary times. However, even though the claimant was born with the plaintiff's parent and it was found that the wife was unable to take the part of the father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's mother's mother's mother, it cannot be objectively clear that the father's father's father's father's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother is presumed to be the defendant's mother's mother's mother in the marriage.

Article 844(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Meu73 Decided April 25, 1988 (Gong1988, 912)

Claimant

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Daegu High Court Decision 90Reu218 delivered on June 20, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The so-called presumption of paternity under Article 844(1) of the Civil Act that the wife’s attitude is presumed to be the father’s natural father’s child during marriage applies to both the wife’s consciousness and the wife’s wife’s wife’s consciousness during marriage, not to cases where it is apparent that the presumption of paternity is not a case where it is externally obvious that the father’s consciousness cannot be born due to the lack of the father’s consciousness, such as whether one side of the husband and wife was residing in a foreign country for a long time and actually divorced as South and North Korea (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu73, Apr. 25, 198). It cannot be said that the circumstance that the husband and wife’s wife is separate from the other spouse’s husband and wife at ordinary times does not constitute grounds for not

According to the judgment of the court below, after the claimant and the non-Claimant were married, the claimant entered into an overlapping relationship with another woman and was living separately from the claimant, but the non-Claimant was found only once a year since the relationship between the claimant's parent and the non-party living in this country was one year. Thus, if the wife's mother and the non-party living in this country, it cannot be said that there is lack of a club enough to objectively obvious that the wife cannot share the father's consciousness. Thus, the respondent who was clearly born during the marriage is presumed to be the natural father of the claimant. Thus, the decision of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the arguments.

The court below did not recognize that the claimant actually infringed on the status of the husband and wife, and it is not necessary to investigate whether the presumption of paternity was actually infringed or not, so it cannot be said that there was a mistake of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence.

In addition, according to Article 847(1) of the Civil Act, the lawsuit of denial of paternity shall be brought within one year from the date on which the birth of the child is known, so the judgment of the court below which held that the claim of denial of paternity of this case, which was brought in excess of the period, is unlawful, is justifiable, and the circumstances such as the circumstance that the claimant was unaware of the existence of a provision regarding the exclusion period, or the circumstance that the claimant believed that he/she was responsible for the existence of such provision, and that he/she would adjust the family register, are not a justifiable reason for filing a

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won