2017dden 101852 Confirmation of Denial or the existence of paternity

A

1.B

2.C

June 27, 2017

August 8, 2017

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

It is confirmed that there is no natural relationship between the Defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. B reported a marriage with D on January 24, 1974, and it became final and conclusive on January 24, 1990 by the Daegu District Court, divorced from D, and reported a marriage with the Plaintiff on June 5, 191.

B. D delivered C on August 25, 1982, which was married with B, and C was registered as B’s husband in the family relations register.

C. B filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of denial of paternity with the Daegu District Court 89D1393 against C, and the above court dismissed B’s claim for adjudication on the ground that there was no proof that B had any apparent external circumstances, such as that D had been separated from B at the time of the birth of C, and that D had no burden of proving that there was any apparent external circumstances, such as the period of exclusion of the action of denial of paternity had lapsed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

Inasmuch as the presumption of paternity under Article 844(1) of the Civil Act is a strong presumption that the presumption of paternity is not permitted, so long as the wife is born while the husband is married, the presumption is limited only to the case where the wife is born abroad over a long period of time, or where the husband is dead due to the de facto divorce, etc., and the wife is unable to capture the father due to the lack of living together. Unless there are such exceptional circumstances, any person who is not the father of the father cannot assert that he is not the father of the father. Thus, the provision of Articles 846 and 847 of the Civil Act to reverse such presumption is to file a lawsuit of denial of paternity and obtain a final judgment. It is unlawful to seek confirmation of the absence of paternity by a lawsuit of confirmation of denial of paternity under Article 865 of the Civil Act, not the lawsuit of denial of paternity, which is the action of denial of paternity (see Supreme Court Decision 200Meu2929, Aug. 22, 200).

C It is insufficient to recognize that there is an apparent circumstance that D was unable to capture B’s person due to the lack of living together, such as that D was born during the marriage with D and was subject to the presumption of paternity. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful, and there is no evidence to support this, as such, there is no reason to acknowledge that D was unable to capture B’s person due to the lack of living together, by reason of the lack of living together, such as where D was born abroad over a long period of time at the time of the Plaintiff’s birth.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Kim Jong-chul