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

In full view of Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, part of the testimony of non-party 3, 5, and 6 of the witness, and the whole purport of the arguments as a result of the genetic appraisal entrusted by this court, the following facts may be acknowledged:

A. On October 7, 1961, the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 gave birth to the plaintiff among the two parties after completing the marriage report.

B. The deceased non-party 1 livedd with the non-party 3 from around 1972 to the time when the defendant died. The deceased non-party 1 knew that the defendant 3 was born by the non-party 1, and was living together from around 1979 to 1986, and reported the birth as the natural father between himself and the deceased non-party 2 under the understanding of the deceased non-party 2 on October 16, 1985.

C. After that, Nonparty 3, at the deceased Nonparty 1’s house, took care of the Defendant and brought him together with the Defendant up to now.

D. The deceased non-party 1 died on June 30, 1995, and the deceased non-party 2 died on December 30, 1997.

F. However, in the genetic testing conducted at the request of this court, the result was that the deceased non-party 6 and the defendant cannot be the same side fraternity.

2. Determination

A. Existence of paternity

According to the above facts of recognition, it is clear that there is no parental relation between the defendant and the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2, and there is a benefit to seek confirmation.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument of rejection of illegality

(1) The exclusion period map and argument

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit seeking confirmation of natural father-existence of this case was unlawful since all the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 died, they filed a lawsuit against the prosecutor within one year from the day they became aware of the death of all the above two persons, but they filed a lawsuit against the defendant with the lapse of one year from the day they became aware of the death of two persons.

However, the claim for confirmation of existence of the natural father of this case was filed to confirm that there is no parental relation between the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 and the defendant who is the living person. Thus, the defendant who is the living person shall be deemed to have legitimate eligibility for defendant, and the prosecutor shall not be subject to the limitation of the exclusion period because he cannot become the defendant of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu7, May 12, 1987, etc.).

(2) The assertion that the adoptive relationship between the deceased Nonparty 1 and the deceased Nonparty 2 and the defendant was established

The Defendant asserts that there was no benefit to seek confirmation that there was no parental relation between the Defendant, the deceased Nonparty 1, the deceased Nonparty 2, and the deceased Nonparty 2, as long as there was no room for dissolution of adoptive relation due to the death of the deceased Nonparty 1 and the deceased Nonparty 2.

A report of birth of a natural parent as the intent of the parties to establish a adoptive parent relationship, and if the actual requirements of adoption are met, the adoption takes effect even if the adoption was made in a somewhat erroneous manner, and the adoptive parent relationship has the same content as that of the parental parent relationship. In this case, a false report of birth of a natural parent has the function of a report of adoption to publish the adoptive parent relationship, which is a legal parent-child relationship. In such a case, if the family relation register of a natural parent-child who is not consistent with the truth takes effect as a public notice of a legal parent-child relationship, barring special circumstances, such as the cancellation of adoption or dissolution of the adoptive parent relationship, and the claim for confirmation of existence of parental parent-child relationship cannot be allowed (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Meu1493, May 24, 2001).

In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to conclude that the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 had the intent to adopt the defendant, without the consent of the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2, as seen earlier, on the premise that the defendant was the deceased non-party 1's natural father, who was aware of the fact that the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 had raised the defendant for a certain period of time. However, it is difficult to conclude that the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 were the deceased non-party 1 who were born between the deceased non-party 3 and the deceased non-party 2, and it is assumed that the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 were the deceased non-party 1's natural father, and that the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased were the deceased non-party 1's claim for annulment of adoption without the consent of the deceased non-party 384 of the Civil Code.

In domestic affairs, the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 were the intention of adoption, and even if the defendant was merely the reason for revoking adoption under Article 884 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act that he was not the deceased non-party 1 and all of the above two persons were deceased, the plaintiff, not the party to adoption, cannot seek the revocation of adoption, at the time of adoption, even though Article 869 of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 3051 of December 31, 197) provides that the adoption requirement under Article 869 of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 3051 of December 31, 197) provides that "if the person to be adopted is under the age of fifteen, the adoption must be approved in place of the parent, or if the mother or the guardian does not have any parent, the guardian must obtain the consent of the family council if the consent is to be obtained." Thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant's adoption requirement was fully satisfied.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the family relationship between the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 and the defendant was established is without merit.

(3) The assertion of implied ratification of the adoptive relationship between the deceased Nonparty 1 and the deceased Nonparty 2 and the defendant

Even if the defendant's natural father's birth report did not meet the actual requirements of adoption at the time of the birth report, and the defendant did not raise any objection against the birth report of the deceased non-party 1, any of the deceased non-party 1's relatives, and the defendant also faithfully served as a resident of the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2, and did not raise any objection against the above birth report even after the age of majority. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the adoption meets the substantial requirements and impliedly confirmed the birth report of the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 and the defendant have an adoptive parent relationship between the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2. As seen above, if the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 were aware of the above facts before the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 died, it is difficult to conclude that the above defendant's birth report was confirmed as the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 2.

(4) The assertion that it violates the principle of good faith

The Defendant asserts that seeking confirmation that there is no parental relation between the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 after the death of the deceased, is aimed at taking away the inherited property from the Defendant, and thus is contrary to the principle of trust and good faith. However, the inheritance right is only derived from the fact that there is a legal relation within a certain scope of relationship. Thus, even if the inheritance right results in deprivation of the Defendant’s rights to the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2’s inheritance, the above circumstance alone cannot be deemed as being contrary to the principle of trust and good faith.

(5) Therefore, it is difficult to accept all the Defendant’s assertion that the instant lawsuit is unlawful for the foregoing reasons.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Kim Young-gu