Whether or not a person who was born in a de facto marital relationship has the right to request the designation of the biological mother;

According to the provisions of Articles 99, 837, and 843 of the Civil Act, Article 2(1)3(f) of the Family Trial Act, Article 30 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 32-5 of the Court Organization Act, cases where a request for designation of a person fostering a child is permitted are limited only to cases where the person’s application is made at the request of a divorce party or at the time of a judgment of nullity or revocation of marriage, and the birth and birth of a person born in a de facto marital relationship or temporary settlement relationship is not permitted under the current law because there is no legal basis to make a request for designation of a person fostering the child against his/her biological father

Article 837 of the Civil Act

May 8, 1979, 79Meu3 decided May 8, 1979 (In addition, Article 2 (1) of the International Family Trial Act, Article 2 (1) of the International Family Trial Act, No. 27 ② 18, 613, 1193)

Claimant

appellees

Gwangju District Court (82D851)

The part of the claimant against the claim for designation of the custodian among the original adjudication shall be revoked, and the lawsuit against that part shall be dismissed.

The remaining appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the claimant.

The original adjudication shall be revoked.

The requester shall be designated as the rearing of the applicant.

The respondent shall pay 130,000 won each month to April 4, 1989 from the day after the copy of the written appeal of this case was served on the claimant.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the respondent.

According to Gap evidence No. 2 (No. 2), which is an official document, the fact that the applicant is registered in the family register as a child born out of wedlock on April 5, 1969 between the applicant and the respondent. The claimant may assert that the applicant knows that he/she has the principal domicile with the respondent from January 1, 1967 to April 197, he/she is living together with the respondent, and he/she has given birth to the respondent and has taken care of him/her from that time until then, he/she has taken care of him/her from that time, and is trying to take care of him/her in the future, so he/she shall designate the applicant as his/her guardian and also seek payment of the amount of KRW 130,000 each month as a future child support until the foreign applicant reaches the majority.

Therefore, in light of various provisions regarding the part of the claim for the designation of a custodian, including the health care room, Articles 99, 837, and 843 of the Civil Act, Article 2(1)3(f) of the Family Trial Act, Article 30 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 32-5 of the Court Organization Act, the designation of a custodian is limited only to the case where the designation of a custodian is permitted at the request of a divorce party or at the request of a divorce party at the time of rendering a judgment on nullity or revocation of marriage, and the case where the child’s mother who was born due to the foreign de facto marriage, temporary settlement relationship, or temporary settlement relationship is the same as the case where the child’s mother requested the designation of a custodian against the child’s mother. Thus, the part of the claim for the designation of the custodian of this case is unlawful by

Then, since both the health care unit and the parents are obliged to support the part of the claim for future child support, it is the mother of the person outside the claim, the claimant is also obligated to support the extra-claimer, and the claimant has brought up the extra-claimer himself/herself and intends to bring up the extra-claimer, even though he/she is trying to bring up the extra-claimer, it is not necessary to determine the amount of the child support.

In this case, the part of the claimant's claim for the designation of the custodian in the appeal of this case is unlawful and this cannot be corrected in its nature, and the part of the claim for the designation of the custodian in the future is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part of the claim for the designation of the custodian in the appeal of this case is unfair in accordance with the judgment of the court and the conclusion, the part of the claimant's loss is revoked, and the part of the claim for the designation of the custodian in the appeal of this case is dismissed, and the future part of the claim is just in accordance with the judgment of the court and the conclusion, and the appeal of the claimant in this part is dismissed

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chul