Plaintiff

Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office

April 28, 2015

Gwangju Family Court Decision 2014Ra12127 decided February 11, 2015

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. It is confirmed that there is no parental relation between the deceased Nonparty 2 and the deceased Nonparty 1, and between the deceased Nonparty 2 and the deceased Nonparty 7.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 15, 2010, the deceased non-party 1 was determined as the person eligible for the fourth grade of the Order of Merit for National Foundation. The deceased non-party 1’s children were the deceased non-party 4, the deceased non-party 2, and the female non-party 5. The non-party 4 and his spouse and children, and the non-party 5’s spouse were all killed before the date on which the above decision was made. The non-party 6 (date of birth 1 omitted) was the child of which the non-party 5’s only lives, and the plaintiff is the non-party 4’s grandchildren.

B. On August 30, 2010, Nonparty 6 filed an application for registration of bereaved family members of the persons of distinguished services to the national independence with the head of the Gwangju Regional Veterans Office pursuant to Article 6 of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Services to the national independence (amended by Act No. 1132, Feb. 17, 2012; hereinafter “former Honorable Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Services to the national independence”). On November 24, 2011, the head of the Gwangju Regional Veterans Office decided to register Nonparty 6 as the bereaved family members of the persons of distinguished services to the national independence.

C. On the other hand, on November 25, 201, Nonparty 3 (date of birth 2 omitted) also filed an application for registration of bereaved family with the head of the Gwangju Regional Veterans Office for registration of the deceased Nonparty 1’s children as the deceased Nonparty 2’s children, claiming that the deceased Nonparty 1’s children were the first priority among the deceased Nonparty 1’s grandchildren, and on November 30, 2011, the head of the Gwangju Regional Veterans Office rejected the registration of the bereaved family with respect to Nonparty 3 on the ground that “the deceased Nonparty 3 did not have any public data that can be recognized as the deceased Nonparty 1’s non-party Nonparty 1’s non-party loss.”

D. Accordingly, Nonparty 3 filed a lawsuit against the head of the Gwangju District Court for revocation of the registration of a person of distinguished services to the national independence (201Guhap4510) by asserting that the decision to deny the bereaved family registration was unlawful, and received a favorable judgment against the head of the Gwangju District Court that “Although the name of the deceased non-party 1 (2) and the mother of the non-party 3 (8) are different from that of the deceased non-party 1’s mother, the deceased non-party 2, who is the father of the deceased non-party 3, is the same person as the non-party 9’s spouse under the law, who is the deceased non-party 3’s father, and accordingly, the non-party 3 as the deceased non-party 2’s grandchild, who is the deceased non-party 1’s grandchildren, should be registered as the senior bereaved family, and thus, the disposition of the head of the Gwangju Regional Veterans Affairs Office refusing to apply for the registration of the deceased non-party 3

E. Accordingly, the head of the Gwangju Regional Veterans Office appealed against the above judgment and appealed to the Gwangju High Court (2013Nu1798). The Gwangju High Court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on the ground that “The removal of the foregoing register appears to be correct in substitution, and it is difficult for the spouse Nonparty 8 and his parents to deem the entries on the non-party 9’s book to be correct.” The Supreme Court subsequently rejected the judgment dismissing the appeal.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

According to the register of expulsion of Nonparty 4, the deceased non-party 2 is the mother of Nonparty 4, and the deceased non-party 7 is the father, respectively. According to the above judgment, even if the deceased non-party 1's "non-party 2" is the same as the deceased non-party 9's spouse's "non-party 8" under the law, according to the non-party 9's register of expulsion, the non-party 8 is described as the non-party 10 and the father of the deceased non-party 11. According to the non-party 4's register of expulsion and satisfaction, the deceased non-party 2 was born (the date of birth omitted) after the deceased non-party 7's death (the date of birth omitted), the non-party 8 is the deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 7 and the deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 7's deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2's deceased.

B. Determination as to the claim of denial or existence of paternity between the deceased Nonparty 2 and the deceased Nonparty 1

Ex officio, we examine whether the plaintiff is eligible to seek a claim for confirmation of paternity between the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 1.

The "interested person who can bring a lawsuit seeking confirmation by asserting that there is no parental relation between others" refers to a third person who has a direct interest in obtaining a specific right or removing a specific obligation by confirming that there is no parental relation between others by the action for confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu88, Jul. 13, 1990). As seen earlier, in order to be registered as the deceased non-party 1's bereaved family member, the deceased non-party 1's grandchildren who are the deceased non-party 2's children, and the deceased non-party 6 remains alive. According to the court below's determination on existence of parental relation between the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 1, the plaintiff who is the deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 2's deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 1's claim for adjudication on existence of parental relation between the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased party 1's deceased non-party 2's claim.

C. Determination as to the claim for confirmation of paternity between the deceased Nonparty 2 and the deceased Nonparty 7

Ex officio, we examine whether the plaintiff is eligible to seek a claim for confirmation of paternity between the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 7.

As seen earlier, whether the plaintiff or the non-party 3 can be registered as the deceased non-party 1's bereaved family member or non-party 1's bereaved family member or not shall be determined on the basis of whether the deceased non-party 1's descendants, and it is not determined on the basis of whether the deceased non-party 7's descendants. The plaintiff cannot obtain a specific right or be exempted from a specific obligation even if there is no parental relation between the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 7. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's claim is unlawful as the plaintiff's non-party 2 lacks standing to sue (aba, it is insufficient to find that the deceased non-party 2's mother is not the deceased non-party 7 on the existence of parental relation between the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 7, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked as it is unfair to conclude otherwise, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the decision to dismiss the lawsuit of this case.

Judges Kim Jung-hee (Presiding Judge)