It is necessary to clarify that both denial of legitimacy and the verification of invalid presumption of paternity have the same purpose or not, in terms of practical and theoretical perspectives. Is it justifiable not to against selfassertion of illegitimate child even if a putative father doesn't have an action of denial of legitimacy or hasn't won the court judgment yet? From Article 63 and 67 of the Code of Family Act, there are clear provisions for “Disavowal and Confirm parent-child relationship.” Also, whether the legislative section of the Judicial Interpretation No. 587 word article explained that: “In order to avoid litigation damage to the stability of the marriage of others, family harmony and parenting rights, the biological fathers is prohibited bringing an action for disavowal to the presumption of legitimate children by law. There is no conflict with the Constitution. This is a form of freedom legislation whether legislation will take a limited relaxation of such litigation in the future.” The topic of this article “Retrospective Effect of Suit for Disavowal of Paternity of the Substantive Study: A Case Analysis on Supreme Court Judgment No. 100-Tai-Shang-Tzu-370” raises many different opinions theoretically and practically. The problems are: (1) If the mother is not listed as a co-accused, what is the effectiveness of Suit for Disavowal of Paternity? (2) Can Suit for Disavowal of Paternity be traced back the effectiveness after the judgment has been made? (3) What is the distinction between Suit for Disavowal of Paternity and the recognition of non-existence of parent-child relationship? (4) After the filing of Suit for Disavowal of Paternity during the peremption, should the recognition of non-existence of parent-child relationship be reconfirmed? Based on above-mentioned issues, it brings up different practical and academic perspectives and needs to have further discussion of legislation and interpretation study on value.