In case of a request for confirmation of existence of a de facto marital relationship, the exclusion period

In a case where one of the parties who were in a de facto marital relationship dies and requests a confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship in the past after the death, the provision of Article 865 of the Civil Act and Article 863 of the Civil Act concerning the claim for confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship should be analogically interpreted in that the claim is a kind of claim for confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship. Therefore,

Article 2(1)3(b) of the Family Inquiry Act

Claimant

Appellant, Appellee Intervenor Kim Ho-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 81Reu26 delivered on October 5, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of an appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the claimant (only referring to the defendant for retrial, hereinafter referred to as the "appellant").

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below that the testimony of Nonparty 1 in the prior suit was proved by perjury, and that the judgment became final and conclusive on July 29, 1980 and that the request for a retrial was made on August 23, 1980. If one of the parties who was in a de facto marital relationship dies and requests confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship in the past after the death, the court below should interpret the provision of Article 865 of the Civil Act and Article 863 of the Civil Act on the claim for confirmation of the existence of paternity in that the claim is a kind of claim for confirmation of the existence of a de facto marital relationship, and therefore, the provision on the exclusion period of the lawsuit should apply mutatis mutandis under the view that the provision on the exclusion period of the lawsuit should be applied to the deceased Nonparty 2 who was living with the deceased Nonparty 2. The previous suit filed on February 3, 1975, which had been rejected on January 24, 1979.

In light of the records, the court below's disposition has pride as legitimate, and it cannot be found that there was an error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles, and all of the arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)