2013D 15052 Confirmation of the existence of paternity

A

B

March 5, 2014

March 26, 2014

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 networkC.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B was born between the two in 1976, where they were married between the deceased D and E.

B. During the process of having no child between the F and F, the deceased and the deceased and the deceased and the deceased were born from the deceased and the deceased, and on December 11, 1976, the Defendant’s name was “B” and the date of birth “B” as “B, 1976.**, *........) The Defendant was born between the deceased and the F, and the deceased and the deceased were born. After that, the Defendant was born from the deceased and F’s residence, and the deceased and the deceased were aware of the fact that the deceased and the deceased were the deceased and the deceased were the deceased and the E.

D. On October 29, 198, the NetworkC married with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant began to live in the country from around that time to the place of residence of the network D, who is a living father, and continued to live separately from the NetworkC until around the time of the death of the networkC.

E. On June 27, 2013, the deceased on and after the deceased on June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of existence of paternity against the Defendant due to the inheritance of the deceasedC. In this regard, the Defendant appeared on the date of the second pleading when recognizing that there is no biological relationship between the deceasedC and the Defendant, and expressed his/her intention not to have any objection to the Plaintiff’s claim, and sought rejection of the instant claim while submitting a written reply on January 8, 2014, and reversed his/her intention. The Defendant was present on the fourth hearing date for pleading and the Defendant, and was living together with the deceasedC until the time when the deceasedC married with the Plaintiff. After the deceased’s death, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention not to consent to seeking substantial dissolution of inheritance between the deceased and the Defendant. In this regard, the Defendant filed against the deceased and the G (C’s father) family court for division of inherited property * 20% as the current claim for consolidation of inherited property.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

The plaintiff completed the birth report of natural father's birth in order that the deceasedC actually adopted the defendant. However, while the deceased C and the plaintiff did not have a family living together with the defendant during their marital life, the defendant did not have the deceased C as his father. In order to solve the problem of inheritance of the deceasedC's property, the deceasedC and the defendant seek confirmation of non-existence of paternity.

Therefore, in a case where the parties have an obvious intent to establish a adoptive relationship between themselves, and the actual requirements for the establishment of adoption are met, if the birth report of the natural father exists instead of the adoption report, the adoption is effective even if it is somewhat erroneous in the form (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Da492 delivered on July 26, 197).

In this case, the following circumstances revealing the purport of the entire argument about the above facts: ① at the time of the birth report against the defendant, the deceased and F couple appears to have had an obvious intent to establish a adoptive parent relationship with the defendant at the time of their birth report against the defendant; ② at the time of the birth report against the defendant, the deceased and F couple determined that they would face or consent to the adoption of the defendant; ③ the deceased and F couple were actually living with the defendant before the divorce after the above birth report, and they were raising the defendant as their own consciousness. ④ At the time of the divorce with F, the defendant was aware of the fact that the deceased and F couple were the deceased and the birth father and the birth father were the deceased and they were the deceased E, and thereafter, they were living with the deceased and their adoptive parents at the time of their birth report to the deceased and their birth report to the deceased and they did not take any measures such as the birth report to the deceased and the deceased, even if they did not agree with the deceased and the deceased couple’s biological parents at the time of their birth report.

Meanwhile, barring special circumstances, such as the fact that the adoptive parent relationship has the same effect as the biological parent relationship, the claim seeking confirmation of non-existence of the biological parent relationship cannot be allowed, unless there is a need to resolve the adoptive parent relationship due to the dissolution of the adoptive parent relationship. In this case, the deceasedC already died, and the dissolution of the adoptive parent relationship is only possible only by the parties, and there is no way to resolve such relationship between the deceased and the both parties, and thus, the claim seeking confirmation of the existence of the biological parent relationship cannot be allowed by cancelling the records of the family relation register itself, and the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the biological parent relationship between the deceasedC

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is not permissible under the law, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-jin