The case holding that although the claimant stated the parent’s father in the family register injury column of the respondent reported to be born to a person other than marriage, there is no standing to seek confirmation of parental relation and existence between Gap and the respondent.

An interested party who can bring an action of confirmation by asserting that there is no parental relation between others refers to a third party who has a direct interest in the claim, such as obtaining a specific right or removing a specific obligation by confirming that there is no parental relation between others according to the action of confirmation. Thus, there is no legal marriage between the claimant and the non-claimer Gap, and the parent of the respondent who is reported of birth as a person other than the marriage of the family register Gap is stated in the claimant's mother in the case where the claimant himself/herself is stated in the claimant's mother, the claimant is not the mother of the respondent, as well as the claim seeking confirmation that there is no parental relation between the initial claimant and the respondent, and the first instance court filed the lawsuit of this case and accepted the claim of this case, and thereby the respondent did not appeal and the judgment of the first instance court becomes final and conclusive, the claimant cannot be deemed an interested party who can seek confirmation that there is no parental relation between the claimant and the respondent.

Article 865 of the Civil Act, Articles 35 and 26 of the Personnel Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

appellees

Seoul High Court Decision 89Reu2141 delivered on December 1, 1989

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Ex officio, the decision is made on whether the litigation on the claim for confirmation of denial or existence of paternity of this case is legitimate.

According to Article 865 of the Civil Act and Articles 33(3), 35 and 26 of the Personnel Litigation Act, the action for confirmation of existence of paternity pursuant to Article 865 of the Civil Act may be brought only by the parties (the father, mother, and child), their legal representatives, or relatives or interested parties under Article 777 of the Civil Act. An interested party who can bring an action for confirmation by asserting that there is no paternity relation between others means a third party, who has a direct interest in the action for confirmation, such as obtaining a specific right or removing a specific obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4293Da314, Sept. 29, 1960; 76Meu3, Jul. 27, 1976).

However, in this case, the claimant claimed confirmation that the respondent is a natural father born between the defendant and the non-party 1 and the respondent on the ground that the defendant was born between the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, but the fact that the defendant does not have a parental relation between the deceased non-party 1 and the respondent on the ground that he was born between the deceased non-party 2 and the third party. According to each entry of the evidence No. 1-1 through No. 3 (a certified copy of each family register), it can be known that the claimant did not have a legal relation with the deceased non-party 1, but that the defendant's parent who was reported as the birth of the non-party 1 to the deceased non-party 1 on the family register was recorded as his mother. Further, the claimant's own assertion that the plaintiff is not the biological mother of the respondent, and that the court of first instance did not appeal the plaintiff's claim, and it is clear that the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive because the claimant did not have a specific legal relation or a right between the defendant and the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below dismissed the appellant's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the claimant's claim, on the ground that the claim seeking confirmation that there is no parental relation between the deceased claimant 1 and the respondent based on the premise that the claim was groundless. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the parties who can file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of parental relation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal by the appellant, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)