[Seocho-dong Legal Story] "Daughter Entrusted Due to Financial Hardship" Claim Leads to Suspension of National Merit Recipient's Child Allowance

The Story Behind the Suspension of 6·25 War Casualty Children Allowance
Veterans Affairs Halts Payments Following Final Ruling on Non-Existence of Biological Relationship
Supreme Court: "Claims and Judgments Contradicting Final Ruling Are Not Permissible"

Mr. A (71, female), born in 1950, had a father, Mr. B, who participated in the Korean War that year. The following year, less than a year after his daughter was born, he died in action. Her mother also passed away when A was 16 years old.

A’s middle school record stated: "Always has a gloomy expression due to being a war orphan," and "Appears somewhat depressed, possibly due to the misfortune of being a war orphan and living under grandparents." The elementary school record listed Mr. B and his wife as A’s parents. Subsequently, A was recognized as a child of a national merit recipient and began receiving the "6.25 War Fallen Soldiers’ Children Allowance" from the Seoul Veterans Affairs Office starting in 2002.

However, in 2014, the Seoul Veterans Affairs Office confirmed through the family relationship registry that A was not Mr. B’s child and stopped the allowance payments. They also decided that A did not qualify as a "child" under the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons of Distinguished Service to the State.

The background involved a paternity denial lawsuit finalized in 1986. When A turned 35, the side of Mr. C, originally believed to be her uncle, claimed that they were her biological parents. They stated, "Due to financial difficulties at the time, A was entrusted to Mr. B, the 'real uncle,' and was registered as his child." Other relatives supported this claim. Mrs. D, the wife of Mr. C who lived in the United States, filed a lawsuit asserting that "A is not the biological child of Mr. B and his wife," and the Seoul Family Court accepted this and finalized the ruling.

In 2019, A filed a lawsuit at the Seoul Administrative Court requesting the cancellation of the Veterans Affairs Office’s decision. She argued that she was clearly born to Mr. B and his wife, and that the decision based on the premise that she was not their child was unlawful.

The first trial dismissed A’s claim, citing the 1986 court ruling that confirmed A was not Mr. B’s biological child. However, the second trial ruled that A should be considered Mr. B’s "de facto child," and that the Veterans Affairs Office’s decision to stop the allowance was unjust. The court stated, "The term 'child' under the National Merit Act should be interpreted to include not only legally recognized biological children but also children in a de facto parent-child relationship."

However, the Supreme Court’s judgment differed. The bench focused on the precedent that a finalized paternity denial lawsuit ruling has res judicata effect on third parties as well. Res judicata means the legal effect that prevents contradictory claims or judgments against a finalized court decision.

On the 20th, the Supreme Court’s 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Jo Jae-yeon) announced that it overturned the lower court’s ruling in favor of A in the appeal case against the Seoul Veterans Affairs Office regarding the cancellation of the decision that A was not a child of a national merit recipient, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court. The ruling means that A cannot claim to be Mr. B’s child to the Veterans Affairs Office, nor can the court make a different judgment.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.