If a third party who has an interest requests a trial on confirmation of denial or existence of paternity, the eligibility of the respondent.

Where a third party who has an interest in accordance with Article 865 of the Civil Act requests a trial on confirmation of paternity or the existence of paternity, he/she shall make a request against both parents and children, or where he/she dies on the one hand, he/she may make a request against only the survivors, and where both parents and children die, he/she shall make a request for confirmation against the prosecutor within one year from the date on which the death becomes known.

Article 865 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Meu77 Delivered on March 8, 1983

Claimant

appellees

Seoul High Court Decision 86Reu282 delivered on December 15, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where a third party who has an interest in accordance with the provisions of Article 865 of the Civil Act requests a adjudication on the existence of paternity, the adjudication shall be made against both parents and children, but where both parents and children have died on the one hand, only the survivor may be made, and where both parents and children have died, the prosecutor shall seek confirmation thereof within one year from the date of becoming aware of the death (see Supreme Court Decision 81Meu77, Mar. 8, 1983). In the same purport, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the eligibility of the respondent in the adjudication on the existence of paternity relationship between the non-party 1 who is a Siberter, and the network non-party 2 and the network Kim Kim-C, who are registered as his parents on the family register, while seeking a adjudication on the existence of paternity relationship between the non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1 who is the respondent, it is justifiable to determine that the adjudication request in this case is unlawful. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the eligibility of the respondent in the adjudication on existence of paternity.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)