(a) Whether or not the biological mother may file a request for a trial on designation of the adopted child against the born child by establishing a marital relationship outside of wedlock;

(b) Whether or not a biological mother can claim the past or future child support to the biological father of a child;

A. In light of Article 909 of the Civil Act, Article 2(1)3 of the Family Trial Act, Article 30 of the Personnel Litigation Act, Article 837, Article 843 of the Civil Act, Article 32-5 of the Court Organization Act, etc., in cases where parents divorce (a consultation, divorce and judicial divorce) and agreement on fostering between the parties to the divorce is not reached or cannot be reached, the parties may make a request to the court for the determination of necessary matters concerning fostering, or in cases where the parties request to the court for the determination of matters concerning fostering, nullity of marriage, or revocation of the judgment, and in other cases, it is evident that there is no legal basis to request the designation of the person fostering the child to the court. As such, in cases where the parties request the designation of the person fostering the child to the court, it is evident that there is no legal ground to request the designation of the person fostering the child. As such, as to the person born between them, it cannot be said that Gap and Eul have determined matters concerning the designation of the person fostering the child or fostering as the child.

B. Since both parents have the duty to support their own consciousness, the support of the child by Gap is merely a performance of the duty of self-reliance, and it is nothing more than a voluntary support of the child, and if it is intended to support the child in the future, there is no possibility of a claim for the support allowance of the minor who is the right to receive support, as well as the past child support not only for the child support for Eul who is the child's father, but also for the future child support.

Articles 837, 843, 909, and 974 of the Civil Act; Article 30 of the Personnel Litigation Act; Article 2 of the Family Trial Act; Article 32-5 of the Court Organization Act

○ ○

○ ○

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (86div. 86d. 54)

The appellant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the claimant.

The original adjudication shall be revoked.

A claimant shall be designated as a person who is rearing of 1 other (the date of June 1, 1984).

The respondent shall pay 15,642,270 won to the appellant.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the respondent in both the first and second instances, and provisional execution for the part demanding money shall be declared.

1. The claimant is a ground for the appeal of this case. The claimant established a regular relation with the defendant from 1978 to 198 on November 28, 1983, and gave birth to the non-party 1 to 200,000 won between the defendant and the non-party 1 until now, and the defendant raises the non-party 1. The defendant has six children between his wife and the defendant's wife, and the defendant intends to cancel the registration of non-party 1 in his family register. Thus, it is more reasonable to leave the non-party 1's fostering to the defendant for the future of his father, rather than to leave the non-party 1's fostering to his father's father to the defendant. Further, it is more reasonable to raise the non-party 1 to become an adult and to request the defendant to designate the non-party 1 as the rearing of his child support for the period from 100,000 won per month to 20,000 won per month, and the defendant's child support was paid from 26.

2. Therefore, in light of Article 909 of the Civil Code, Article 2 (1) 3 of the Family Trial Act, Article 30 of the Personnel Litigation Act, Articles 837 and 843 of the Civil Code, Article 32-5 of the Court Organization Act, etc., the first part of the claimant's request for the designation of a child shall be permitted only in cases where the parent does not reach an agreement on fostering between the parties to the divorce (a divorce or judicial divorce), or where the parties request the court to determine the necessary matters concerning fostering, or where the parties request the court to determine the matters concerning marriage, nullity of marriage, or revocation of the judgment, and there is no legal basis to request the designation of the person to foster the child. Thus, with respect to a claim between the claimant and the respondent, with respect to the non-party 1 born between them, it cannot be said that the claimant's request for the adjudication concerning the designation of the child or the designation of the person to foster the child as his child cannot be said to be unlawful.

3. In full view of the whole purport of the pleading in respect of the following claims for support fees: (a) No. 1 (No dispute over the establishment of the family register) and testimony of No. 2, 3, and 4 (except for the portion which is not trusted after the testimony of No. 2 and No. 4) from 1978 to 198; (b) the claimant has been working for the unit agricultural cooperative at the time (name omitted) under the name of (No. 1) in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (Eup) family; and (c) there is no other obligation of the respondent to voluntarily support the child support for the first time after establishing a relationship with the respondent; and (d) there is no other obligation of the respondent to voluntarily support the child support for the first time after the defendant's birth was born between the respondent and his wife and the claimant's wife; and (d) there is no other obligation of the defendant to voluntarily support the child support for the first time to 1 as well as to support the defendant's own child support for whom he had no obligation of the defendant.

4. If so, the claimant shall dismiss the part concerning the designation of a custodian in the petition for a trial on the ground that the part concerning the claim for support fees is unlawful and without merit, and the judgment of the original court is just in conclusion, and the appellant's appeal is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the appellant.

Judges Yoon Sang-sung (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)