(a) Whether the recognition report made to a person who is not a natural father is valid (negative), and in such cases, the method of asserting invalidity of recognition;

B. Whether the adoption is effective in cases where the parties have an obvious intent to adopt at the time of reporting the recognition under Paragraph (a) above and the requirements for establishment of adoption have been met (affirmative)

C. Whether the Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal

(a)a recognition report for a person who is not a natural father is void as a matter of course, and such recognition may be asserted by anyone, even without recourse to a judgment or other procedure to determine the nullity;

B. Even if the above "A" is recognized, if the parties have an obvious intent to adopt and meet all the requirements for establishment of adoption at the time of the report, it can be interpreted that the adoption has the effect.

C. At the time of the enforcement of the intended Civil Code (from April 1, 1915 to December 31, 1959), the eternal sonship system was not recognized.

A.B. Article 855(b) of the Civil Code, Article 878(c) of the former Civil Code, Article 877(2) of the former Civil Code, (e.g., deletion by Law No. 4199, Jan. 13, 19

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Da492 delivered on July 26, 1977 (Gong1977, 102) (Gong1977, 1029). Supreme Court Decision 67Da1940 delivered on January 31, 1968 (No. 16?31 delivered on November 26, 1968) 68Da1543 delivered on November 26, 1968 (No. 16 ③240 delivered on March 24, 1970).

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff and four others (Attorney Shin Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 91Na7696 delivered on May 29, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

A recognition report made to a person who is not a natural father is null and void as a matter of course, and such recognition may be asserted as null and void even without going through a judgment or other procedure to confirm the nullity (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da948, Apr. 13, 1976). Even if such recognition is made, if the parties have clearly expressed their intent to adopt and meet all other requirements for establishment of adoption at the time of the report, it may be interpreted as having the effect of adoption. However, as the recognition report of this case was not recognized at the time of the enforcement of the Civil Act (from April 1, 1915 to December 31, 1959), it cannot be viewed as having the effect of adoption of this case against another person (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da1940, Jan. 31, 1968).

Under the above opinion of the court below, despite the recognition report of this case against the deceased non-party, there was no parent-child relationship between both parties. Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff cannot have an inheritance share on the land of this case owned by the deceased non-party, and there is no illegality of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)