Plaintiff (Attorney Jeon Sung-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Young-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 16, 201

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

It is confirmed that there is no parental relation between the defendant and the deceased non-party 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The deceased Nonparty 2 maintained the same-sex relationship with Nonparty 1 from around 1965 to December 2010.

B. Around July 23, 1969, Nonparty 2 took part in the Plaintiff who is not the father, and reported the birth as the father, and on May 22, 1970, Nonparty 2 took part in the Defendant who is not the father, and filed the report of birth as the father of a child.

C. Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 resided with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and brought up the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

D. On February 19, 198, Nonparty 1 adopted the Defendant as the adopted child on February 19, 198. Even after the adoption report, Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 had resided together with the Plaintiff and the Defendant until the Plaintiff and the Defendant married to work as a family community, and even after the Defendant married to work, Nonparty 2 got married to the Defendant, even after the Defendant was married, and Nonparty 2 got married to work as a marriage fund for the Defendant, and the Defendant was going to the hospital until the death of Nonparty 2, and maintained the family relationship while traveling frequently.

[Ground of recognition] Class A evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is not the natural father of the non-party 2, and even if the adoptive parent relationship between the defendant and the non-party 2 was established, the adoptive parent relationship was terminated simultaneously with the adoption of the defendant.

B. Determination

In light of the above, the report of birth of the natural father as the intention of the parties to establish the adoptive parent relationship, and if the adoption satisfies all the substantial requirements, the adoption becomes more erroneous in its form, and the adoptive parent relationship has the same content as the parental relation, except for those that can be resolved by the dissolution of the adoptive parent relationship, and thus, the false report of birth of the natural father in this case has the function of the report of adoption to publicly announce the adoptive parent relationship, and in such a case, barring any special circumstances, such as where it is necessary to resolve the adoptive parent relationship by the dissolution of the adoptive parent relationship, the claim to confirm the existence of the biological parent relationship is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Meu86, Feb. 23, 198; 200Meu1493, May 24, 201).

In this case, according to the above facts of recognition, the non-party 2 reported the birth of the defendant as his natural father's father, and the non-party 2 raised the defendant as his father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's mother's father's father's father's father's father's mother's father's father's father's father's father's mother's father's father's father's mother's father's father's father's father's father's mother's father's father's father'

On the other hand, the adoptive parent relationship formed by ratification cannot be resolved without the dissolution of adoptive relation. Since the defendant had resided together with the non-party 2 and the defendant living together with the previous parent even after the completion of the adoption report by the non-party 1, it is difficult to view that the adoptive parent relationship between the defendant and the non-party 2 was dissolved on the ground that the defendant reported the adoption as the adopted child by the non-party 1 and that the adoptive parent relationship between the defendant and the non-party 2 was terminated, there is no evidence to support that the adoptive parent relationship between the defendant and the non-party 2 was terminated.

In addition, even if there are special circumstances, such as the need to resolve the adoptive relationship due to the dissolution of the adoptive relation, the claim for confirmation of denial or existence of parental relation in such a case is substantially substituted for the claim for dissolution of the adoptive relation. Therefore, the plaintiff, other than the adoptive parent, has no standing to file the lawsuit

3. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.

Judge the last secretary: