In a case where: (a) upon reporting a marriage with “A” and reporting the recognition of “B” as to “B” born between “B” and other men; and (b) thereafter, upon termination of divorce lawsuit with “B”, the conciliation was concluded to proceed with the procedure for dissolution of the adoptive relation and the claim for adjudication on modification of the principal and the performance of “B”; (c) as “A died without the dissolution procedure, etc. of the adoptive relation with “B”, the case holding that “A”’s recognition report has no effect as an adoption report due to failing to meet the requirements for adoption; and (d) it is clear that “A” is not a birth father of “B” and “B” is null and void.

Upon reporting the marriage between A and B, “A” reported the recognition of the disease born between B and another male, and thereafter, the conciliation was concluded between A and B to proceed with the procedure for dissolution of the dissolution of the adoptive relation and the claim for adjudication on the change of the origin of the case, but as “A” did not proceed with the procedure for dissolution of the adoptive relation against C, “A”’s mother (her mother) sought the invalidity of recognition against C.

The case holding that, as the main purpose of Gap's recognition report is for the marriage with Eul, it cannot be determined that Byung had a clear and genuine intent to adopt Byung, it is for the period of life together with Byung for four months, and the period after recognition report is merely 11 months and it is difficult to deem Gap to have a personal life relationship, such as care and custody, and rearing between Byung and Byung, it is difficult to recognize the validity of adoption for the sake of the stability of status and the welfare of a child, the revised Civil Code provides that the adoption of a minor shall be permitted by the Family Court, and the adoption of a minor shall be null and void without the permission of the Family Court, in light of the fact that Gap did not obtain the permission of the Family Court while reporting recognition, it is clear that Gap's recognition report has no effect as an adoption report because it does not meet the requirements of adoption, and it is clear that Gap did not have a patient of Byung, and thus, recognition report on Byung is null and void.

Articles 867(1), 878, and 883 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Spatial, Attorney Shin-hee et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (son of parental authority Nonparty 1) (Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

April 18, 2018

1. On December 24, 2014, it is confirmed that the recognition against the Defendant reported to the head of the Seoul Dobong-gu, Seoul on December 24, 2014 by the deceased Nonparty 2 (resident registration number omitted) and the Net Chang-gun, the original domicile was invalid.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the mother of the deceased Nonparty 2 (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. While Nonparty 3 was born on November 21, 2014 between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1, the Deceased reported a marriage with Nonparty 1 at the Dobong-gu Seoul Office on December 24, 2014. Upon reporting the said marriage, the Deceased reported the recognition of the Defendant who gave birth between Nonparty 1 and another male (hereinafter “instant recognition report”).

C. Around March 2015, Nonparty 1 returned home to Defendant only and returned home to Korea. Nonparty 1: (a) claimed to the Deceased on May 12, 2015; and (b) claimed a divorce, etc. against the Deceased on August 2015, the Seoul Family Court (Seoul Family Court 2015D322403) filed a lawsuit against the Deceased on divorce, etc.

D. In the above divorce lawsuit, conciliation was concluded on October 29, 2015 with the following content (the content irrelevant to this case is omitted).

The plaintiff (the plaintiff) and the defendant (the plaintiff) are divorced on December 2, 201. The plaintiff (the plaintiff) and the defendant (the plaintiff) will designate the person in parental authority and the custodian of the defendant of the case as the plaintiff. 3. On June, 201, the person in parental authority and the custodian of the defendant of the case are designated as the defendant. On the completion of the divorce of this case, the defendant will proceed with the procedure for dissolution of the defendant of this case and the request for a trial on

E. The Deceased died as a traffic accident on November 29, 2015 when the procedures for dissolution of the adoptive relation against the Defendant were not followed.

F. On May 24, 2017, the Defendant, as an adopted child of the Deceased, filed a lawsuit claiming payment of approximately KRW 360,000,000,000, equivalent to 50% of the deceased’s death insurance proceeds, on the ground that he/she is an inheritor. The Defendants of the instant case filed an application for notification of lawsuit with Nonparty 3 on October 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The defendant's assertion

The deceased reported the recognition of the instant case, thereby becoming effective as to the Defendant, and the deceased died without proceeding to dissolve the adoption and continue to exist in the adoptive relationship. Therefore, if the Plaintiff contests the validity of recognition, it must be disputed by the action to confirm the existence of the adoptive parent relationship. In addition, on December 7, 2017, two years after the date of death of the deceased, the limitation period of the action to confirm the existence of the adoptive parent relationship was imposed. Moreover, since the Defendant and the deceased continue to have the adoptive parent relationship, there is no benefit of confirmation. Accordingly, the instant action should be dismissed as unlawful.

B. Determination

If the parties have falsely reported the birth of the natural father, but they have the intention of adoption and meet the substantial requirements of adoption, adoption shall take effect. In this context, an agreement to adopt is required; a person under the age of 15 must have his/her legal representative's abortion; the adoption does not have any ground for invalidation under any subparagraph of Article 883 of the Civil Act, such as the continuation or extension of the adoptive parent's existence or extension; and the adoption must necessarily entail any personal life record of the adoptive parent as an adoptive parent. Even if the report of birth of the natural father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's husband's father's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's wife's report does not take effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4862, Oct. 29, 2013).

In relation to the instant case, the Health Team and the Deceased reported the recognition of the instant case on the same day when they reported a marriage with Nonparty 1. After the Deceased reported the recognition of the instant case, the period of life together with the Defendant does not exceed four months. Nonparty 1, who was his/her father and was his/her father, was in his/her house and went back to the Defendant. Nonparty 3, who was his/her father and was his/her father, was in his/her house, was in a divorce lawsuit between the Deceased and Nonparty 1, and the Deceased did not have the intent to rear the Defendant, and expressed his/her intention to proceed with the dissolution procedure against the Defendant, and was unable to proceed with the dissolution procedure due to an accident that occurred during one month after the divorce lawsuit was concluded, the principal purpose of which the Deceased reported the instant recognition is for the marriage with Nonparty 1, and it is difficult to conclude that there was a clear and genuine intention to adopt the Defendant as his/her adoption. In addition, it is difficult to deem that the adoption relationship between the Deceased and the Defendant’s living together with the Deceased and the deceased’s welfare and one month.

Meanwhile, the revised Civil Act provides that the adoption of a minor shall be permitted by the Family Court for the adoption of the minor, and the adoption of a minor shall be null and void without the permission of the Family Court. In this regard, it is reasonable to deem that the recognition report of this case does not take effect as an adoption report because it did not meet the requirements for adoption (in the case of an adoption that meets all the forms of adoption and practical requirements, it is reasonable to deem that the adoption report of this case does not take effect as an adoption report because it did not meet the requirements for adoption, and if the adoption report of this case takes effect without the permission of the Family Court for the sake of the welfare of the child, the legal provision that stipulates that the adoption report of this case shall take effect without the permission of

C. Sub-committee

The recognition report of this case does not take effect as an adoption report because it does not meet the requirements for adoption. Therefore, the defendant's exclusion period intention, assertion, and non-existence of interest in confirmation are without merit, which is premised on the formation of adoptive parent relationship between the defendant and the deceased as a result of the recognition report of this case.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. As above, the recognition report of this case does not have the effect as an adoption report, and it is evident that the deceased is not the birth of the defendant. Thus, the recognition report of this case against such factual relations is null and void unless there are special circumstances, and the plaintiff has the legal interest to seek confirmation.

B. The Defendant asserted that the adoption intent of the deceased to nurture the Defendant as friendly, and that if the Defendant, who is a minor, loses his status as the deceased without any reason, would not be permitted as violating the principle of good faith, due to the divorce between the deceased and Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff’s request after the death of the deceased.

In order for the Defendant to lose his status as the deceased, the Defendant ought to be recognized as the adopted child. However, as seen earlier, the recognition report of this case has no effect as an adoption report, and thus the Defendant is not recognized as the adopted child, and thus, it does not lose his status as a adopted child that does not exist at the beginning. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion in violation of the good faith principle is without merit. Rather, even though Nonparty 1, a legal representative of the Defendant, agreed to adjust the relationship between the Defendant and the deceased as the process of dissolution in a divorce lawsuit against the deceased, if recognized as the deceased’s heir, the Defendant’s assertion as the deceased’s adopted child for the sole purpose of receiving the insurance money, and the Defendant’s assertion as the deceased’s child for the purpose of receiving the insurance money cannot be allowed.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.

Judges Yoon Jae-nam