logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2012.11.7.선고 2012드단6593 판결
친생자관계부존재확인
Cases

2012D 6593 Confirmation of Denial or the existence of paternity

Plaintiff

1.00

Address Cheongju City

The place of service shall be the City/Do

2. ©00

Address Cheongju City

The place of service shall be the City/Do

The plaintiffs' registration standard North Korea Group

Defendant

00

Address Cheongju City

[Attachment District of Chungcheongbuk-gu]

Conclusion of Pleadings

October 24, 2012

Imposition of Judgment

November 7, 2012

Text

1. We confirm that there is no parental relation between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

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

Purport of claim

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be recognized by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers):

A. Under the family relations register, the Defendant was registered as the Plaintiffs’ children, but the ○○○○○, a gene assessment institution, judged that the Defendant was not the Plaintiffs’ children.

B. On May 25, 1980, the plaintiffs decided to adopt the defendant who was in the wishing ○○, a child rearing facility, and reported the birth of the defendant on October 6, 1980.

C. On September 28, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Cheongju District Court (the thief) and completed the execution of the sentence at the Cheongju Prison on August 17, 2012.

D. In addition, on September 14, 1999, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, at the Cheongju District Court on September 14, 199; six months from the same court on September 28, 2001; one year and six months from the imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; five million won from the same court on November 7, 2002 at the same court on November 8, 2007; one million won from the punishment for larceny; and one million won from the same court on January 17, 2008 at the same court on November 27, 2009; and seven million won from the fine for larceny as the same court on November 27, 2009.

2. Determination

According to the above facts of recognition, it is evident that no parental relation exists between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and the plaintiffs have the interest to seek confirmation.

On the other hand, the report of birth of the natural parent as the intention of the parties to establish the adoptive parent relationship, and if the actual requirements of the adoption are met, the adoption becomes effective even if the adoption were committed in the form thereof, and the adoptive parent relationship has the same contents as the adoptive parent relationship under law except for the matters that can be resolved by the dissolution of the adoptive relation. In this case, the false report of birth of the natural parent can function as a report of adoption through the public notification of the adoptive parent relationship under law. In such a case, barring any special circumstance, such as where it is necessary to resolve the adoptive parent relationship by the dissolution of the adoptive parent relationship, the claim for confirmation of the absence of paternity by cancelling the family register itself cannot be allowed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Meu1493, May 24, 2001). However, if the birth report of the natural parent has the effect of the adoption, and if it is necessary to resolve the adoptive parent relationship due to the dissolution of the adoptive parent relationship, it is possible to confirm the existence of the parental relationship (see, etc.

Even if the actual requirements of adoption between the plaintiffs and the defendant are met, if we look at the fact that the defendant habitually committed a crime as seen earlier, and was detained until recently, there is a cause of judicial dissolution under Article 905 subparag. 5 of the Civil Act (if there is any other serious reason to continue a adoptive relationship), between the plaintiffs and the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim is justified as a claim for confirmation of the absence of parental relation in lieu of a judicial dissolution.

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by accepting the plaintiffs' claims.

Judges

Lee Chang-seop

arrow