Incheon Address

Seoul basic domicile

2. A woman of 64 years old;

Seoul Address

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff Law Firm

Attorney Lee In-bok

Seoul Address

Seoul basic domicile

Special Representative 000

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

A. From 1986 to 1986, the Plaintiff 2’s mother was operating the hospital (**,******) in the name of Seoul MaMa Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma00, the Defendant was discovered for more than two weeks since around September 1997. Accordingly, the Plaintiff 2 was aware that he was unable to give birth, and the Defendant was raising the Defendant from around that time.

B. The plaintiffs are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on October 18, 2000, and the defendant was willing to raise his children with his own children, and on January 5, 2001, the report of birth was filed against the defendant as if he was born between them as the natural father.

C. After that, the Plaintiffs are raising, care and custody of the Defendant as their children until now, and during that period, there is no objection or any contact among the Defendant’s actual parents and other relatives.

D. On April 2009, Plaintiff 2, who is a citizen of 00, filed an application with the Defendant for a visa of 00 state sovereignty with the Defendant to leave the Republic of Korea for a visa of 00 country, but the Defendant was not issued the said visa on the ground that not only the Plaintiff 2’s natural father but also the adoption was not made in accordance with lawful procedures.

[Grounds for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 13 (including each number), witness 000, witness's testimony, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. The report of birth of a natural father as the intention of adoption shall be made by the parties, and if there are some errors in the form of adoption, the adoption shall take effect even if the actual conditions of adoption are met. In this case, the false report of birth of the natural father shall function as the report of adoption to publish the adoptive parent-child relationship, which is legal parent-child relationship. In this case, in order to establish the actual conditions of adoption, there must be an agreement on adoption, and the child under the age of 15 shall not be a legal representative's abortion, and the adoption shall not be a person who has an adoptive parent's existence or extension, and shall not be a person who has an adoptive parent's personal life as an adoptive parent (see Supreme Court Decision 9Meu1633, 1640, Jun. 9, 200).

B. In light of the health team, the background of the report of birth on the defendant who appeared in the above recognition and the situation of custody, etc., in the case of the plaintiffs, it shall be presumed that there was an obvious intent to establish a adoptive relationship between the defendant and the defendant at the time of the report of birth on the defendant. Meanwhile, if the defendant's natural parents did not appear until the ten years have passed, and the adoption does not recognize the validity of a child under the age of 15 on the ground that the defendant's natural parents did not explicitly consent to the person under the age of 15, it would result in an outcome of neglecting the protection of the law. In light of all circumstances such as the fact that the defendant's right to the abortion seems not to be known, it shall be presumed that the consent of the person under the right to the adoption was obtained by the defendant, and it shall be reasonable to deem that the defendant's natural parents meet all other substantial requirements such as the fact of living as an adoptive parent.

Therefore, the report of birth of the plaintiffs against the defendant should function as an adoption report, so there is each adoptive parent relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it is clear that there is a adoptive parent relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and as the plaintiffs have a benefit to seek confirmation, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.