If the parent of a person registered as a natural father of a family register requests recognition (negative)

Since the claimant is not a child born out of wedlock by the respondent, the claimant can not claim recognition of the respondent, and as long as the claimant has already been registered in his/her family register as the natural father of the respondent, there is no benefit to seek recognition as the natural father of the respondent against the respondent.

Article 863 of the Civil Act

Claimant

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court (83D624 Judgment)

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the claimant.

The original adjudication shall be revoked.

An appellant is recognized as the natural father of an appellee.

The trial costs shall be borne by the respondent in both the first and second instances.

The appellant’s legal representative was the father of November 16, 1941, and the appellant was the father of the appellee who was born as the child during marriage between him and his mother as the child of the same two children, and the birth report was made as the natural father of the appellee’s family register as one other than the claimant. However, in the sixth and twenty-five incident, the appellant was the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 3, who was in operation of the husband and wife, and it was impossible to know the legal domicile of the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 3, who was the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 3, upon the permission of the establishment report of the Busan District Court's M&D branch, and filed a report on the birth report as of November 17, 1943 with the mother, and thus, the appellee’s legal representative did not appear as the claimant’s child born between the natural father and the non-party 1 and the natural father. Thus, the claimant’s legal representative did not request as the natural father’s identity.

Therefore, the appeal of this case by the claimant is dismissed as it is unlawful because there is no benefit of lawsuit. The appeal of this case is dismissed as just and there is no ground for appeal by the claimant. The appeal costs are assessed as per Disposition at the cost of the losing claimant.

Judge Seo-dae (Presiding Judge)