[2] In a case where Gap filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of paternity and existence of paternity against Eul after having falsely reported the birth of the natural father of Eul for the purpose of adoption of Eul, and Eul filed a claim against Eul for confirmation of paternity and "A is dissolved," but Eul filed a report of dissolution of paternity without due process to correct Eul's adoptive relationship, and the resident registration information at the time of expulsion from the family relations register still remains, the case holding that Eul has a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the past legal relationship that existed between Eul and Eul for correction of the content of registration of family relations

[2] The case holding that in case where Gap filed a false report of birth of the natural father Eul for the purpose of adoption Eul and filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of paternity relation against Eul, and Eul filed a claim for confirmation of existence of paternity relation against Eul (hereinafter "Settlement of adoptive relation"), and there still remains resident registration information at the time of expulsion from the family relations register by filing a report of dissolution of adoptive relation without going through the procedure to correct the parental relation as the adoptive relation, Gap's report of birth as the natural father's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's child's family relation's family relation's family relation's family relation's child relation's family relation's family relation's child relation's family relation's child.

A. It is confirmed that there exists a adoptive parent relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

The plaintiff and the defendant confirm that the adoptive parent relationship existed or exists (the plaintiff stated that the claim of this case was included in the claim of this case at the second date for pleading of the trial of the court of first instance, and that there was a adoptive parent relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The following facts may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of pleadings to the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 7:

A. The defendant and the co-defendant 1 of the first instance court reported the birth of the plaintiff as his natural father. However, the defendant and the co-defendant 1 of the first instance court reported the birth for the purpose of adoption of the plaintiff even if the plaintiff is not his natural father, and the defendant and the co-defendant 1 of the first instance court raised the plaintiff as his natural father from around that time.

B. After the Plaintiff became an adult (report on March 28, 2003), the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking confirmation of the existence of paternity (No. 2004da21451) against the Plaintiff’s natural parents, and the conciliation was concluded on October 10, 2005 that “the Plaintiff and the Defendant shall dissolve their adoption.”

C. On October 26, 2005, the Plaintiff reported the dissolution of the adoptive relationship between her female and the Defendants on October 26, 2005, without proceeding to correct her parental relationship as her adoptive parent relationship. At present, the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was granted a new resident registration number as Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s children in the family relations register, but there still exist resident registration information at the time

2. Determination

A. The report of birth of the 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 adoption of the parent-child relationship, which is the legal parent-child relationship. In this case, in order to determine that the actual conditions of adoption are met, there must be an agreement of adoption, and the child under the age of 15 shall not be an grounds for invalidation of adoption under each subparagraph of Article 83 of the Civil Act, such as the existence or extension of the legal parent-child relationship, and the adopted child shall not be an adoptive parent-child relationship (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 plaintiff as seen above, and the situation of later custody, etc. as to the instant case, it shall be deemed that the defendant had an obvious intent to establish an adoptive parent relationship with the plaintiff at the time of the report of birth on the plaintiff, and it shall be deemed that the plaintiff implicitly ratified the report of birth in lieu of the above adoption after the plaintiff became 15 years of age, and all other substantial requirements for adoption such as the adoptive parent's status and living as the adoptive parent. Thus, even if the plaintiff was found in the form of error, the report of birth on the plaintiff shall be effective as the report of adoption. Thus, the adoptive parent relationship between the plaintiff

C. As to this, the defendant asserts that there is no adoptive relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant since the adjustment was made between the plaintiff and the defendant that "the plaintiff and the defendant shall be dissolved." As seen earlier, the mediation was made between the plaintiff and the defendant on October 10, 2005 that "the plaintiff and the defendant shall dissolve the adoption of the adoptive relationship." In the case of family mediation, the mediation protocol has the same effect as a judicial compromise (Article 59 (2) of the Family Litigation Act), and therefore, the mediation protocol has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment (Article 20 of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, it is deemed that the adoptive relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant has terminated (Article 220 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act is not a creative report, but a report on the dissolution of the adoptive relationship is not a report, and even if the report on the

D. Therefore, the adoptive parent relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was established as stated in the above Paragraph (b) and continued until the dissolution of the adoptive relation is terminated due to the above adjustment. Thus, the adoptive parent relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant at the time of the dissolution of the adoptive relation is deemed to exist.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff and the defendant have an adoptive parent relationship and generally cannot be the subject of confirmation. However, even if the plaintiff and the defendant have an action for confirmation, there are many legal relations premised on them such as adoption, establishment of a company, invalidation or cancellation of resolution at a general meeting of shareholders, and administrative relations such as administrative dispositions, and if it can be an appropriate means to resolve disputes arising out of the past legal relations themselves, rather than repeating the procedure of confirmation individually, it is exceptionally admitted the benefit of confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 94Meu147 delivered on March 28, 1995). Since the plaintiff who is not a natural parent and the defendant filed a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of parental relation after the birth of the plaintiff who is not a natural parent, the plaintiff's claim for correction of the family relation relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 is not necessary for confirmation of existence or absence of the adoptive parent relationship under the Act on the Adjustment of Family Relationship, and thus, it is not necessary for the court to determine the existence or absence of the adoptive parent relationship as a new adoptive relation.

Judges Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)