[2] The case holding that in a case where Eul, who had a same-sex relationship with a female Gap, had a birth report of Byung as his father's birth, had raised Byung as his father's father's father's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's birth report, and Byung lived with Gap and Eul after Eul's adoption report, it is unlawful for Eul to

[2] The case holding that, in a case where Eul, who was in the same-sex relationship with Eul as a female Gap, was born as his father's birth report, and Byung was brought up together with Byung as his father's father's birth report, and Byung was subsequently living together with Gap and Eul even after Eul filed a bilateral adoption report, Byung's adoption report is a matter of the validity of adoption between Eul and Byung because it is difficult to see that Byung's adoptive relation was dissolved solely on the ground that Byung completed the adoption report with Gap's adoption report, and thus, Eul's claim for confirmation of existence of paternity relation between Eul and Byung is unlawful, since Eul'

1. The report of birth of the natural father as the intent of the parties to establish the adoptive parent relationship, and if the adoption satisfies all the substantial requirements, the adoption becomes effective even if the adoption was committed in the form thereof, and the adoptive parent relationship has the same contents as that of the adoptive parent relationship, except for those that can be resolved by the dissolution of the adoptive parent relationship. Therefore, the report of birth of the natural father has the function of the report of adoption to publicly announce the adoptive parent relationship, which is the legal parent-child relationship. Therefore, in such a case, barring any special circumstance, such as where it is necessary to resolve the adoptive parent relationship due to the dissolution of the adoptive parent relationship, the claim to confirm the existence of the biological parent relationship, which is the legal parent-child relationship, cannot be allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Meu86, Feb. 23, 198; 200Meu1493, May 24, 2001).

On the other hand, the amendment of the Civil Act on July 1, 2013, a person who has attained majority before the adoption of the adoption permission system, regardless of gender, marital status, etc., may adopt the adoption if the adoption agreement is reached between the parties and the parent’s consent. Thus, the adoption cannot be deemed null and void solely on the ground that a person who has duly reported the adoption pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Act at the time is a person who has a same-sex and living together with the same-sex and plays a different role in the same sex, and the same applies to the case where he has reported the birth as a

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance. ① The non-party 2, who was in a same-sex relationship with the same female, reported the birth of the defendant as his natural father, and the non-party 2 and the defendant, and confirmed the birth report in lieu of the adoption made by the non-party 2 on the ground that the defendant knew of the above facts after the age of 15, and the defendant did not raise any objection thereto, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the non-party 2 confirmed the birth report in lieu of the adoption made by the non-party 2 on the ground that the non-party 2 had the effect as an adoption report retroactively, and the non-party 2 and the defendant formed a adoptive relationship with the non-party 1, and the defendant maintained the adoptive relationship with the non-party 2 and the defendant while living together with the former. Thus, the court below determined that the defendant's adoption report was unlawful on the ground that there was no evidence to find otherwise that the adoptive relationship between the non-party 2 and the defendant 2 was dissolved.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of the birth report of the natural father with the intention of adoption.

However, the Korean Civil Act does not allow the same-sex marriage (see Supreme Court en banc Order 2009S117, Sept. 2, 201) and does not allow the joint adoption of adoptive parents among non-party 1 and the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 93Meu1242, Jan. 24, 1995). Thus, the court below determined that the adoption of non-party 2 and the non-party 1 does not have any influence on the conclusion that it is not necessary to resolve the adoptive relationship between the non-party 2 and the defendant because the adoption of the defendant is the de facto marital relationship between the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 and the defendant because it is nothing more than the adoption of the spouse. However, in light of the relationship between them, the adoption becomes an issue after the adoption, and the defendant did not confirm the birth report of the non-party 2 or did not have any agreement between the non-party 2 and the defendant. Thus, the decision does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)