Registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration

Only by the fact that the Plaintiff was born as the father of FF and EE, the relationship between the Plaintiff and EE cannot be deemed to have been formed.

Article 869 of the Civil Act

Seoul High Court 2014Na2037116 Registration for Cancellation of Ownership

AA

Foreign Country of Korea 3

Mar. 12, 2015

Mar. 26, 2015

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's decision is that the defendants' new arguments in the court of first instance are "in the middle". This court's decision is identical to the entry of the defendants in the court of first instance in addition to adding the following two paragraphs after the 10th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 20.

2. Additional determination

As to this, Defendant CCC and Defendant DD asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff should be presumed to be the natural father of EE according to the Plaintiff’s transcript (Evidence No. 4-2). However, the Plaintiff actually born between FF and K on January 19, 1936, but the report of birth was made between FF and EE on the premise that the Plaintiff was born between FF and EE, and that both judgment to revoke the adjudication on disappearance of the Plaintiff and the judgment to revoke the registration of transfer of ownership to 33 other than 33 on the premise thereof became final and conclusive, as seen earlier, and as the evidence No. 1 does not interfere with the above recognition, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

Furthermore, Defendant Republic of Korea, Defendant CCC, and Defendant D, asserted that since FF and EE have formed a adoptive parent relationship between the Plaintiff and EE by reporting the birth of the Plaintiff as the natural father after the Plaintiff’s birth, the inheritor of EE also constitutes the Plaintiff’s inheritor.

A report of the birth of the natural father of a child as an adoption shall take effect if the adoption is made by the party concerned with his/her intention, and if the actual requirements of adoption are met, the adoption shall take effect. In this case, the false report of the birth of the natural father of a child shall have the function of reporting the adoption, which is a legal parent-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child-child.

However, in this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the FF and EE agreed to adopt the Plaintiff at the time of the birth report as the natural father, or that the Plaintiff’s mother consented to the adoption, or that the Plaintiff and EE meet the actual requirements for adoption, such as the adoption of the adoptive parent, including custody and custody, rearing, etc., the Plaintiff’s birth report as the natural father of FF and EE cannot be deemed to have formed a adoptive parent relationship between the Plaintiff and EE solely on the basis of the fact that the Plaintiff was the birth report as the natural father of FE. The above assertion by the Defendant, etc. is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the appeal by the Defendants is dismissed in its entirety as it is so decided as per Disposition.