Whether a biological mother may seek confirmation of the existence of paternity between a child born out of wedlock and the deceased father (negative)

In the case of a child born out of wedlock, the parent-child relationship may be recognized instead of stamp, but the father-child relationship only arises by recognition of the father. Therefore, in the case where the father-child relationship dies, a lawsuit against the public prosecutor shall be filed within one year from the date on which the father becomes aware of the death, and a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of paternity between the child born out of wedlock and the deceased father shall not be allowed.

Articles 864 and 865 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jae-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court Decision 96Reu18 delivered on May 22, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the attorney are examined.

In the case of a child born out of wedlock, the parent-child relationship may be recognized without recognition. However, the father-child relationship only arises by recognition of the father-child relationship. If the father-child relationship is deceased, a claim for recognition against the public prosecutor shall be filed within one year from the date on which the father becomes aware of the death, and a claim for confirmation of existence of paternity between the father-child born out of wedlock and the deceased father shall not be allowed.

Therefore, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which rejected the lawsuit of this case, which sought confirmation of the existence of paternity between the plaintiff (the defendant's biological mother) and the deceased, as the defendants were born to a person other than a marriage between the plaintiff (the deceased) and the deceased. It is reasonable in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the action of confirmation claim, the action of confirmation of existence of paternity, or the exclusion period.

In addition, the Supreme Court's argument in the grounds of appeal is inappropriate to be invoked as it differs from the case of this case.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)