The person responsible for supporting others for children born out of wedlock

The duty of support for a child born out of wedlock is to be done by the biological mother before recognition, and both the father and the biological mother after recognition.

Article 855(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court (79 Ghana705)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,00,000 and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the next day of service to the day of full payment.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The plaintiff is the defendant's child born between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who was born between the non-party 3 and was responsible for supporting the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff raised the defendant's above child until he became adult upon the request of the non-party 3, who was his mother, so the defendant was able to gain equivalent benefits with the child support payment for the non-party, and thereby the plaintiff suffered losses, so the plaintiff was 15,000,000 won per 15,000,000 won per person, and thus the plaintiff is able to claim by subrogation of the non-party 3, who is the mother of the non-party.

If the testimony of Non-Party 3 and the witness at the court of first instance and the witness at the court of first instance gather the whole purport of oral argument of the parties, the non-party 3 and the defendant, around April 1952, came to know that Non-Party 3 had taken photographs of Non-Party 3 around 1 month after they became aware of the fact that the non-party 3 had been married with Non-Party 4 on September 20, 1939, and the non-party 3 had two children on their own, and they were married to the non-party 4 and the non-party 9 was not reported to the non-party 3. The non-party 3 was married to the non-party 4 and the non-party 3 did not live together with the non-party 4 and was married to the non-party 1 and the non-party 5's family register after being married to the non-party 4 or the defendant's non-party 1 and the non-party 5's family register after being married to the non-party 1 and the non-party 5's family.

According to the above facts, although it is clear that the plaintiff's obligation to support the non-party was made by the request of the non-party 3, who is the mother's birth, but the duty to support the non-party born within wedlock was made by both the father and the mother before recognition, and the non-party's duty to support the non-party born within wedlock after recognition is made by the non-party, and therefore, it is apparent that the non-party had already been attained majority at the time of recognition, and therefore, it cannot be said that the obligation to support the non-party before adult age exists in the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case under the premise that the above non-party's duty to support the non-party was owed to the defendant before adult age does not have any reason to further examine the remaining points. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance that is just and reasonable, and the appeal of the

Judges Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)