Whether or not there has been an intention to select a post-adopted person for whom 4,5 years have passed without refusal of the post-adopted person and adoption of the other person.

The defendant's wife is not proper as the ex post facto adoption of the deceased, and even if 4,5 years have passed without the adoption of the other, it cannot be said that there is no intention to select the adopted child ex post facto.

Article 841 of the former Civil Code

Plaintiff

Defendant

This case is dismissed.

Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant (appellant) attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal is assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances, and the plaintiff's appeal is assessed against the plaintiff's appeal.

The plaintiff, as the cause of the plaintiff's claim, was the defendant's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3, 4 and 5's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's deceased.

As a result, the plaintiff's attorney uses the plaintiff's certified copy of the family register attached to the plaintiff's complaint as Gap's evidence 1, respectively, as Gap's evidence 2, and uses Gap's evidence 3 to 6 and the non-party 4 and 8's testimony as the witness of the court below, and stated Eul's evidence 1 as the site. The defendant's attorney submits Eul's evidence 1, and uses the testimony as non-party 9, 10, and non-party 6 and 7's testimony as the witness of the court below, and denies Gap evidence 1 through 6, respectively, and denies the purport of the evidence.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the plaintiff's 1 and 2 without dispute, the plaintiff's father of the deceased head of the deceased family and died on May 28, 4285, and the plaintiff, his wife, on April 6, 289, succeeded to the family, and it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant (the age of 31) was entered in the family register after the non-party 3, 4 and 5, the deceased father of the deceased head of the deceased family council, and the defendant's testimony was entered after the deceased father's death without the plaintiff's death, the first-order selection right holder of the deceased head of the deceased family council was the plaintiff, who was the head of the deceased family council, and the defendant's testimony was rejected in the court below's decision that the plaintiff did not exercise his authority after the plaintiff's selection of the deceased head of the deceased family council after the death of the deceased head of the deceased family, and the defendant's testimony of the deceased father after the death of the deceased head of the deceased family.

If so, the right to select a person to be adopted ex post facto against the deceased non-party 2 shall continue to exist as a reward, so the adoption by the deceased non-party 2 and the defendant's selection and withdrawal by the deceased non-party 2 who neglected the plaintiff's intent cannot be considered as a bilateral support for invalidity of infringing the plaintiff's right to select the two parties. Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim for nullification of such invalidity is justified, it is reasonable in this purport of the original judgment, and the defendant's original case is reasonable, and the defendant's original case is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act

Judges Yang Gyeong-Gyeongng (Presiding Judge)