Whether a request for designation of a custodian for a child born in a de facto marital relationship is legitimate (negative)

In light of Article 909 of the Civil Act, Article 2(1)3(f) of the Family Trial Act, Article 30 of the Personnel Litigation Act, Articles 837, 843 of the Civil Act, and Article 35-5 of the Court Organization Act, in a case where an agreement is entered into, or a decision is made to nullify or revoke marriage at the request of a party to a judicial divorce, or at the request of a party to a judicial divorce, matters concerning the designation or bringing-up of a child shall be prescribed at the request of the party, and thus, a request for designation of a custodian for a child born in

Article 837 of the Civil Act

May 8, 1979, 79Meu3 decided May 8, 197 (Weak), Article 837(1) of the Civil Act, Section 71 of the Republic of Korea, Section 837(1) of the Civil Act, Section 12193, Section 27B 18, No. 6193)

Claimant

appellees

1. The appeal of this case is dismissed.

2. The cost of a trial shall be borne by the claimant.

A trial to designate a requester as a person who is rearing of the applicant (on January 2, 1984), shall be conducted.

As the cause of the instant appeal is the fact that the claimant had given birth to the applicant on January 2, 1984, while living together with the respondent without filing a report of marriage from April 1983, the claimant gave birth to the applicant and the respondent on January 2, 1984, and the de facto marital relationship between the applicant and the respondent was terminated. Since there is a concern that it might interfere with the marriage between the applicant and the other party on the front day, the respondent seems to have been able to have adopted the other party or entrust the other party to the son, it is more desirable for the defendant to raise the other party to the rearing of the applicant rather than the rearing of the applicant.

Therefore, in light of various provisions such as Article 909 of the Civil Code, Article 2 (1) 3 (f) of the Family Trial Act, Article 30 of the Personnel Litigation Act, Articles 837 and 843 of the Civil Code, and Article 32-5 of the Court Organization Act, in a case where an agreement is reached or a judicial divorce is made upon request of a party, or where a decision is made to nullify or revoke a marriage, matters concerning the designation or fostering of a person who is under custody upon request of the party other than the party shall be determined. In other cases, it is evident that there is no legal basis to apply for the designation or fostering of the person who is under custody, and in other cases there is no legal basis to apply for the designation or fostering of the person who is under custody. Since it is obvious by the claimant itself that the applicant and the respondent have given birth to the person outside of the claim while entering into a de facto marital relationship without a legal relationship, the claimant may not request the court as the mother's own claim for the designation or replacement

If so, the claimant's request for adjudication of this case is unlawful, and the trial costs shall be judged as per the order at the expense of the losing claimant.

Administrative patent judges shall have the right of Hongsung Man (Presiding Judge)