Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
When the two-year period for a paternity claim starts
Supreme Court, Feb. 8, 2024, 2021Meu13279 (judgment)
Case name: 인지청구
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
When the legal representative of a minor child sues for acknowledgement, does the date on which the representative learned of the parent's death start the two-year period in Article 864 of the Civil Act, and where the representative did not sue during the child's minority, from which date does the child's two-year period run after reaching majority?
Holding
Where the legal representative of a minor child sues, the date on which that representative learned of the parent's death is the day from which the two-year period of Article 864 of the Civil Act runs. Where the representative does not sue while the child is a minor, the child may sue within two years from the date on which the child, after reaching majority, learned of the death. The right to claim acknowledgement belongs personally to the child, so the child's will must be respected as far as possible, and allowing the legal representative to sue protects the child whose capacity to litigate is limited rather than restricting the exercise of that right.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그러나 자녀가 미성년자인 동안 법정대리인이 인지청구의 소를 제기하지 않은 때에는 자녀가 성년이 된 뒤로 부 또는 모의 사망을 안 날로부터 2년 내에 인지청구의 소를 제기할 수 있다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
However, where the legal representative has not filed an action for acknowledgment while the child was a minor, it should be regarded that an action for acknowledgment may be filed within 2 years from the date of learning of the death of the father or mother after the child has become an adult.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고 보조참가인들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the intervenors supporting the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이때 미성년자인 자녀의 법정대리인이 인지청구의 소를 제기한 경우에는 그 법정대리인이 부 또는 모의 사망사실을 안 날이 민법 제864조에서 정한 제척기간의 기산일이 된다.
Unofficial English translation
In this case, where the legal representative of a minor child has filed an action for acknowledgment, the date on which the legal representative learned of the death of the father or mother becomes the date on which the exclusion period set forth in Article 864 of the Civil Act begins to run.
Factors
- 그 법정대리인이 부 또는 모의 사망사실을 안 날이 민법 제864조에서 정한 제척기간의 기산일이 된다
- 자녀가 성년이 된 뒤로 부 또는 모의 사망을 안 날로부터 2년 내에 인지청구의 소를 제기할 수 있다고 보아야 한다
- 인지청구권은 자녀 본인의 일신전속적인 신분관계상의 권리로서
- 그 의사가 최대한 존중되어야 하고
- 소송능력이 제한되는 미성년자인 자녀의 이익을 두텁게 보호하기 위한 것일 뿐 그 권리행사를 제한하기 위한 것이 아니기 때문이다
Unofficial English translation
• the date on which the legal representative learned of the death of the father or mother becomes the date on which the exclusion period set forth in Article 864 of the Civil Act begins to run
• it should be regarded that an action for acknowledgment may be filed within 2 years from the date of learning of the death of the father or mother after the child has become an adult
• the right to claim acknowledgment is, as a right in status relations that is exclusively personal to the child himself or herself,
• his or her intention must be respected to the greatest extent, and
• because it is intended only to afford stronger protection to the interests of a minor child whose litigation capacity is limited, and not to restrict the exercise of that right
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2001. 11. 27. 선고 2001므1353 판결(공2002상, 172)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2001Meu1353 decided November 27, 2001 (Gong 2002 Sang, 172)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2001. 11. 27. 선고 2001므1353 판결(공2002상, 172)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a legal representative brought the claim and then withdrew or lost it while the child was still a minor, does the child gain a fresh two years from the date of learning of the death after reaching majority?
A later decision on a suit brought and then withdrawn or lost during the child's minority would show whether the period starts afresh after majority. Any amendment to Article 864 of the Civil Act on the starting point, or a record fixing the date the adult plaintiff learned of the death, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Suwon Family Court, in its judgment of 27 May 2021 (2020Reu2569), held that the suit filed on 5 August 2019 was filed within the period under Article 864 of the Civil Act. The plaintiff had reached majority on 6 October 2017, so the court reasoned that even if the plaintiff had known of the death while a minor, two years had not elapsed from the date majority was reached. The defendants' auxiliary participants argued that the plaintiff's legal representative already knew of the death around 6 February 2012, or at the latest by May 2014, so the suit was untimely.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the reasoning of the court below contained some inappropriate parts, but its conclusion that the suit was filed within the period was right, and that there was no error of law on the starting point of the period under Article 864 that affected the outcome. It therefore dismissed all the appeals unanimously and placed the costs of the appeals on the defendants' auxiliary participants.
Distinguishing conditions
- A suit brought by the legal representative while the child is still a minor, in which the representative's knowledge of the death is itself the starting point of the period.
- A claim under Article 863 of the Civil Act brought against a living parent, where the two-year period against the prosecutor under Article 864 has not begun.
- An adult child who sued more than two years after learning of the parent's death, so the period has run.
Record verification notes
Set down the three dates the rule turns on: the date majority was reached, the date the adult plaintiff learned of the death, and the date of filing. Confirm that no suit was brought during the child's minority, and note who knew of the death and when, since the defendants' auxiliary participants put the legal representative's knowledge at February 2012 or May 2014.
From the official text
Points at issue
미성년자인 자녀의 법정대리인이 인지청구의 소를 제기한 경우, 민법 제864조에서 정한 제척기간의 기산점(=법정대리인이 부 또는 모의 사망사실을 안 날) / 자녀가 미성년자인 동안 법정대리인이 인지청구의 소를 제기하지 않은 경우, 인지청구의 소를 제기할 수 있는 기간(=자녀가 성년이 된 뒤로 부 또는 모의 사망을 안 날로부터 2년 이내)
Unofficial English translation
The starting point of the exclusion period set forth in Article 864 of the Civil Act (= the date on which the legal representative of a minor child learned of the death of the father or mother) where the legal representative of a minor child has filed an action for acknowledgment / The period within which an action for acknowledgment may be filed (= within 2 years from the date of learning of the death of the father or mother after the child has become an adult) where the legal representative has not filed an action for acknowledgment while the child was a minor
Summary of the holding
자녀와 그 직계비속 또는 그 법정대리인은 부 또는 모를 상대로 하여 인지청구의 소를 제기할 수 있고, 이 경우에 부 또는 모가 사망한 때에는 그 사망을 안 날로부터 2년 내에 검사를 상대로 인지청구의 소를 제기하여야 한다(민법 제863조, 제864조). 이때 미성년자인 자녀의 법정대리인이 인지청구의 소를 제기한 경우에는 그 법정대리인이 부 또는 모의 사망사실을 안 날이 민법 제864조에서 정한 제척기간의 기산일이 된다. 그러나 자녀가 미성년자인 동안 법정대리인이 인지청구의 소를 제기하지 않은 때에는 자녀가 성년이 된 뒤로 부 또는 모의 사망을 안 날로부터 2년 내에 인지청구의 소를 제기할 수 있다고 보아야 한다. 인지청구권은 자녀 본인의 일신전속적인 신분관계상의 권리로서 그 의사가 최대한 존중되어야 하고, 법정대리인에게 인지청구의 소를 제기할 수 있도록 한 것은 소송능력이 제한되는 미성년자인 자녀의 이익을 두텁게 보호하기 위한 것일 뿐 그 권리행사를 제한하기 위한 것이 아니기 때문이다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고 보조참가인들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the intervenors supporting the defendant.
Provisions referred to
민법 제863조, 제864조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger