[2] In a case where Gap filed a report of birth as the natural father's father born between husband and woman Eul during his marriage with Eul, Eul, and Eul, the case affirming the judgment below that the adoptive parent relationship was formed between Byung, Eul, and Eul, in full view of the following: Gap and Eul reported the birth with the intent to establish their natural father and child relations, Eul and Eul supported Eul, Eul et al. with their natural father, Eul et al. and supported Eul, Eul et al. with their natural father and children, and after their her death, Eul et al. were al., they were raised as their parents after her death.

A report of the birth of a natural father as the intention of adoption, and if all of the "technical requirements of adoption" are met, the adoption shall take effect even if the adoption was erroneous in its form, and, except that the adoptive parent relationship may be resolved by the dissolution of adoptive relation, shall have the same content as that of the adoptive parent. In this case, the report of the birth of the natural father shall function as a report of the adoption through the public announcement of the adoptive parent relationship, which is the legal parent-child relationship. In addition, in order to ensure that the "technical requirements of adoption" are met, there shall be an agreement of adoption, a person under the age of 15 shall be the legal representative, and the adoption shall not continue or extend, and the adoption shall not have any ground for invalidation as prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 83 of the Civil Act, such as the adoption, care, custody, and custody, etc., and shall have the same effect as the adoptive parent's life (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Meu1493, May 24, 2001).

The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance and found the defendant 1 to have been married between the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who had been married to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who had been married to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who had been married to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, who had been married to the non-party 6. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who had been married to the non-party 9 and the non-party 2, who had been married to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who had been married to the non-party 1 and the non-party 5, who had been married to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who had been married to the non-party 6.

In light of the above legal principles and records, we affirm this recognition and determination by the court below as just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intent of adoption and the substantive requirements of adoption, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)