In a case where Gap et al. sought a judgment to fully adopt Eul who is a grandparent Eul, the case dismissing Gap et al.'s claim on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that Eul et al. to fully adopt Eul is compatible with Eul's genuine welfare

In a case where Gap et al. sought adjudication on adoption of Eul as Eul's grandchildren, the case dismissed Eul et al.'s claim on the ground that Gap et al.'s full adoption of Eul is merely a temporary unpaid liability, and it is difficult to conclude that Eul et al.'s full adoption of Eul is consistent with Eul's true welfare in view of a long-term point of view; Eul et al.'s full adoption of Eul is designated as a parent of Eul; Eul et al. is obviously a serious confusion in family order and relationship between Eul et al.; although Eul et al. adopted full adoption, it is highly likely that serious confusion would occur if Gap et al. becomes aware of the truth surrounding Eul's family relations as a result of its growth; and although Eul et al. do not make full adoption, it is difficult to conclude that Eul et al.'s full adoption of Eul et al. is a parent of Eul; and Eul et al. is designated as a person with parental authority; and there seems to be no special trouble or difficulty in fostering Eul et al.

Articles 908-2 and 908-3 of the Civil Act

Claimant 1 and one other

Principal of the case

The appellant's claim of this case is dismissed.

The principal of the case shall be the full adoption of the claimant.

Since full adoption has a strong effect of making full adoption to terminate the relationship with natural parents and obtain the status of a child born in the marriage of the adoptive parent (Article 908-3 of the Civil Act). Thus, in determining whether to allow full adoption, first priority should be given to determine whether the child is suitable for the welfare of the adopted child, but it should also be determined after careful consideration, such as the motive and realistic necessity of full adoption, and impact on the family relationship (see Supreme Court Order 2010SS151, Dec. 24, 2010).

However, it is clear that the claimant's full adoption of the principal of this case will be the grandparent's parents, and the father's parents will cause serious confusion between relatives. Even if full adoption is made, if the principal of this case becomes aware of the truth surrounding his/her family relationship in any circumstances, the principal of this case will cause serious confusion, and the principal of this case will face the crisis of his/her identity. The same applies to the case where the principal of this case becomes aware of the facts surrounding his/her family relationship as a result of his/her growth. Even if the principal of this case is aware of the claimant as his/her parents, it is only a temporary unsatch, but it is difficult to conclude that the claimant's full adoption of the principal of this case is consistent with the true welfare of the principal of this case from a long-term perspective. In addition, the principal of this case is designated as the father of the principal of this case, and even if the claimant does not have full parental authority, there is no special obstacle to fostering the principal of this case.

Therefore, the claimant's request for adjudication of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-chul