The register of lawsuits seeking confirmation of the existence of the father-child relationship in the case where the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the child born between the father of the father and the pre-born father of the deceased have been raised as the father-child relationship (negative)

If the father of the defendant's biological father, who had already died, agreed that the father of the defendant's biological father and the father of the defendant who had been born at the time 7 years of age and 4 years of age, would grow as the father of the father of the father, and reported the birth as the father of the father of the father, his intention may be deemed to include, as a matter of course, the intention to establish a legal parent-child relationship or higher, at least the intention to establish a adoptive parent relationship, and its intention is clearly expressed by the above report of birth, and it is more firmly guaranteed by the parent-child relationship. Thus, in the case of this case where there is a mutual agreement between the parties of the adoption and it seems that the other substantial requirements of the adoption are met, even if the above report of birth is somewhat wrong in the form of the adoption report, it shall be deemed that there exists a adoptive parent relationship between the father and the defendant, and the claim for confirmation of paternity of this case which unfairly exists as a legal parent-child relationship, barring any special circumstances such as the need to resolve the adoptive relationship.

Article 878 of the Civil Act, Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Family Trial Act, Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da492 delivered on July 26, 197 (Gong1977, 10219) 85Meu86 delivered on February 23, 1988 (Gong1988, 593)

Claimant 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The defendant et al., the defendant et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Reu763 delivered on November 3, 1989

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

As to the grounds of appeal by the respondent

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that non-party 1 was not in a position to claim confirmation of existence of the parental relation of this case since non-party 1 was not a relative with the deceased non-party 2 and the respondent, and accordingly, the non-party 2, who took over the litigation procedure of this case as a child of the non-party 1, was born from Yannam-do, Yannam-do on September 15, 1905 and married to the non-party 3 on April 10, 1924, and the non-party 1 was not in a position to claim confirmation of existence of the parental relation of this case, and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and his non-party 3 were not in a position to claim confirmation of existence of the parental relation of this case, and the non-party 1 and his non-party 2 were not in a legitimate and non-party 2, who were not in a position to claim the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were in a defense.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted, the court below reported the adoption of the defendant to the non-party 6 and the non-party 4, who were married from this North Korea on February 17, 1954 during the Korean War, and to the defendant 2 on May 13, 1956. The non-party 6 died from the defendant in 1957, and the non-party 4, who was married to the non-party 6, was married to the non-party 4, who was married to the non-party 4, and the non-party 2, who was the non-party 4, was married to the non-party 2. The non-party 2, who was the non-party 4, was not aware of the facts that the defendant was born to the non-party 4 and the non-party 2, who was the non-party 4, the defendant's consent to the adoption of the non-party 1, who was the non-party 4, was found to have no legitimate evidence of the non-party 16.

As such, the court below rejected some of Gap evidence 7-24 (Examination of Evidence No. 4) and other documentary evidence adopted by the court below and the facts established by the court below as to whether there was an obvious intention of making the defendant to use the defendant as the defendant's child. However, when considering the facts established by the court below, non-party No. 2 stated that the defendant's non-party No. 4 were born as the defendant's birth, and did not appear as the defendant's birth, and reported the defendant's birth as 10 years prior to the 1945.3.16, the defendant reported the defendant's birth as 10 days prior to the 1961.4 days prior to the 1961. The court below rejected the defendant's birth as the defendant's child's birth after the 14th anniversary of the 1961.4 years prior to the 196277. The defendant did not know that he did not know the defendant's birth to 14 years prior to the 194th anniversary of his birth.

As seen above, as long as the defendant agreed to raise the defendant, who had already died of the defendant's biological father with the non-party 4 who was the defendant's biological mother, and the non-party 2 who was the non-party 7 years old and the non-party 4 years old at the time, as the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the defendant, and the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father of the father,

Therefore, in this case where the adoption parties agree with the intention of adoption, and it appears that the other actual conditions of adoption are met, even if there were some errors in the form of adoption report, the above birth report function as adoption report (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da492 delivered on July 26, 197). Thus, there is a adoptive parent relationship between the party non-party 2 and the defendant, and barring special circumstances such as where it is necessary to resolve the adoptive parent relationship, the claim for confirmation of existence of parental parent-child relationship of this case, which denies the existence of legal parent-child relationship, should be deemed unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 85Meu86 delivered on February 23, 198). Nevertheless, the court below rejected the evidence which can recognize the existence of non-party 2's intention of adoption without any reasonable reason, and rejected the respondent's defense without examining the existence of other requirements for adoption, which did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts and validity of adoption, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)