beta
Text
1. On August 16, 2013, the case where the Defendant filed an application for confirmation of divorce agreement with the District Court 2013No. 1928 against the Plaintiff with respect to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. After completing the marriage report on May 10, 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant divorced on August 16, 2013 on the case of applying for confirmation of the intention of divorce between the District Court Decision 2013No. 2013No. 1928, the Plaintiff and the Defendant committed a marital life with their children C and D (Madu E).
B. The record of the liability for child support in the case of applying for confirmation of intention of divorce (hereinafter “the record of liability for child support of this case”) states that “the Plaintiff shall pay 500,000 won per head from the day following the report of divorce to the date of reaching each adult age to the Defendant upon the report of divorce pursuant to this case, with the child support for minor children.”
C. From August 25, 2013 to May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted 2,3850,000 won to the Defendant as child support for 22 months. D.
Defendant and F completed the marriage report on September 23, 2013, and F adopted the above C and D as full adoption on May 30, 2015.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. In light of the fact that the full adoption is deemed to be a child born within the marriage of the legal couple (Article 908-3(1) of the Civil Act), and that the relationship before the adoption of the full adoption terminates (Article 908-3(2) main text of the Civil Act), it is reasonable to deem that the adoption of the full adoption would no longer be held liable for the denial of paternity of C and D to bring C and D. Accordingly, according to the above basic facts, the Plaintiff paid the full payment of the child support until May 30, 2015, and the child support payment obligation from May 31, 2015 does not bear the child support payment obligation. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the child support provision of this case should be denied.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is accepted on the ground of the reasons.