Whether the relationship of both mother and child is terminated in case where both mother and mother have left the family of both mother due to divorce (negative)

The extinction of relationship due to adoption shall be terminated only by annulment of adoption and dissolution of the adoptive relationship, and the issue of whether the adoptive parent is in the same family register shall not have any influence on the adoption relationship, so even if the adoptive parent has divorced and the adoptive parent leaves the family of both father, the adoptive parent relationship shall not be terminated even if the adoptive parent leaves the family of both father

Articles 865 and 878 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Meu35, 36 Decided September 11, 1979

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorneys Han Han-mo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

In the first place, it is confirmed that there is no natural relationship between the Defendants and the deceased Nonparty 1. In the first place, it is confirmed that there is no natural relationship between the Defendants and the deceased Nonparty 1.

1. Judgment as to the main claim

A. On June 26, 1971, the plaintiffs reported a marriage with the non-party 2, but they wish to have no child among them, they were registered in the family register as the natural father of the non-party 2, who was born to him and the non-party 1, and they also registered in the family register as the natural father of the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 as the mother of the non-party 1, who was raised from the mother of the non-party 1. The non-party 1 married with the non-party 3 on November 21, 1986, when he was divorced from the non-party 2 on June 8, 196, when the litigation such as divorce with the non-party 3 was pending. The non-party 1 and the defendants did not exist, and the plaintiff 1 as the mother of the non-party 1 and the plaintiff 2 as the non-party 1 as the mother of the non-party 1.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the statements Nos. 1 through 6, 7-1, 2, and 8’s testimony and the purport of Nonparty 2 and 4’s testimony, Nonparty 1 reported marriage with Nonparty 2 on June 26, 1971, but did not have a child for several years, and the reasons were revealed to be due to Nonparty 1’s physical defect, the above Nonparty 2 was discussed with Nonparty 1 on March 1975 with Nonparty 2’s consent of Nonparty 2, who was a 7-month mother at the time of Nonparty 1’s birth. After Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s birth, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who was the 7-month mother at the time of Nonparty 1’s birth, were growing Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s birth, who was the 7-month mother at the time of Nonparty 1’s birth, and Nonparty 1 reported Nonparty 2’s birth to Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1’s birth on August 19, 1974.

C. According to the above facts, the adoption consent of the defendants and the non-party 2 were intended to adopt the defendants to the non-party 1, and the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 also intended to adopt the defendants. Since the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 have been divorced, the adoption has been actually maintained a pro-friendly community relationship between the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 and the defendants. Thus, the report of birth against the defendants was made by the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 as the intent to establish a relationship with the defendants. Thus, even though the above birth was found in the form of the adoption, the adoption becomes effective, and the two-child relationship was established between the defendants and the non-party 1. Thus, the relationship between the two-child and the non-party 1 can be resolved by the dissolution of the adoptive relationship. Thus, the false child's birth report in this case can not be justified as the plaintiffs' claim to cancel the adoption relation with the parent-child relationship under the law.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiffs are the conjunctive claim of this case. The above non-party 1 demanded that the non-party 2, who is the husband, should be registered as the husband of this case as the non-party 1, and did not refuse it only against his own will. After that, the non-party 2 did not unilaterally report the defendant 2 as the father of this case. Thus, the non-party 1 did not intend to adopt the defendants. Since the non-party 1 did not intend to adopt the defendants, the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 did not have any adoptive relation. Thus, the defendants and the non-party 1 claim to confirm it, but the non-party 1 and the defendants were established as the two mother-child relationship. Thus, the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

B. Furthermore, even if the two-child relationship was established between Nonparty 1 and the Defendants, the two-child relationship shall be extinguished if the two-child relationship was divorced by the adoptive parent and the two-child relationship became extinct. Thus, Nonparty 1 asserts that the two-child relationship between Nonparty 1 and the Defendants was extinguished since Nonparty 2 divorced from Nonparty 2 on February 17, 1984 and Nonparty 2 left Nonparty 2’sA.

However, the extinction of the relationship due to adoption shall terminate only due to the annulment or dissolution of adoption, and the issue of whether the adoptive parent is in the same family register shall not affect any effect on the adoption relationship. Therefore, the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims of this case are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Suh Jeong-hee