1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts used or added by the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Parts used or added;

A. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which has been written, shall be as follows: (a) Nos. 2, 19, 3, and 1.

A claim for reimbursement of the past support allowance between the married couple who is liable for the first support duty for a minor's woman shall be filed pursuant to Article 2(1)2 of the Family Litigation Act.

(b) A claim for reimbursement of the past support allowance between a number of persons liable for secondary support pursuant to Articles 974 and 975 of the Civil Act, which constitutes a non-contentious family case stipulated in subparagraph 3 of the Category E case, is a claim for reimbursement of support allowance among the persons liable for secondary support.

B. Although the case of Category E falls under the family non-litigation case stipulated in subparagraph 8 of the case of Category E, the claim for reimbursement of the past support allowance to the first person responsible for supporting the second person is not stipulated as the family non-litigation case.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that a claim for reimbursement of the past support allowance by a relative who bears the secondary support obligation against one of the parents who did not perform the primary support obligation against a minor female is not a non-litigation case, and it constitutes a civil litigation case.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da96932 Decided December 27, 2012)

B. In addition, the part 1) between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C’s mother G, there was an implied agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant or G at each time when the Plaintiff demanded C’s support fees, and the Defendant or G paid all the amount requested by the Plaintiff. As such, the claim for the additional support fees may not be allowed as an abuse of rights.

B. Regarding the past's support allowances, the person to be supported requested the obligatory provider to fulfill the duty of support.