In a case where “the express consent of a person with an abortion,” which is an element to take effect as an adoption report by the report of birth of the natural father of Byung who is a legally married couple, Eul and Eul as his/her own intention to adopt, the case holding that Byung’s report of birth on the ground that Byung’s adoption was presumed to have been given consent by a person with an abortion, and the actual conditions of adoption, such as his/her status and living as an adoptive parent, are met, and Byung’s report of birth has function as an adoption report; thus, Gap and Byung have a adoptive relationship between them.

In a case where "the explicit consent of an abortione", which is a requirement to take effect as an adoption report by the birth report of the natural father of Byung who is a legally married couple Eul and Eul as the intention of adoption, was at issue, the case holding that, in light of all circumstances, in light of the fact that the natural parents did not appear until the ten years have passed, and that if the adoption is not recognized as the validity of the child under the age of 15 on account of the fact that the natural parents did not explicitly consent by the person who is under the age of 15, it resulted in neglecting the protection and protection of the law, which requires custody and custody, and that Byung's right of abortion seems not to go this, it is presumed that Byung's consent for adoption was presumed to have been obtained by the person who has fallen under the age of 15, and that the birth report of Byung was fulfilled the function as an adoption report by the person who is the adoptive parent of Gap and Byung, and thus, there exists a adoptive relationship between Gap and Byung.

Articles 869 and 878 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Rate, Attorney Lee Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Special Representative Nonparty 1)

March 2, 2010

1. It is confirmed that each adoptive parent relationship exists between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From 1986 to 1986, Nonparty 1, the mother of Plaintiff 2, operated a hospital ( inside and outside of the hospital) with the trade name of “Surriwon” (hereinafter omitted) in Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “Surriwon”). Around September 1997, the Defendant was discovered for up to two weeks since he was born in front of the above hospital. As a result, Plaintiff 2, who was aware that he was unable to give birth, was able to nurture the Defendant as his children and raised the Defendant from around that time.

B. The plaintiffs are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on October 18, 2000, and the defendant was willing to raise the defendant as his own children, and on January 5, 2001, they reported the birth as if they were born between them.

C. After that, the Plaintiffs are raising, care and custody of the Defendant as their children until now, and there has been no objection or any contact among the Defendant’s actual parents and other relatives.

D. On April 2009, Plaintiff 2, a U.S. citizen, applied for the interest of the interest of the U.S. resident against the Defendant in order to leave the Republic of Korea with the Defendant, but the Defendant was not issued the said visa on the ground that the Defendant was not the natural father of Plaintiff 2 and was not adopted according to lawful procedures.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 13 (including each number), the testimony of non-party 2 of the witness, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The report of birth of the natural father as the intention of adoption shall be made by the parties, and if there are some errors in the form of adoption, the adoption shall take effect even if the actual conditions of adoption are met. In this case, the false report of birth of the natural father shall function as the report of adoption to publish the adoption of the parent-child relationship, which is the legal parent-child relationship. In this case, in order to determine that the actual conditions of adoption are met, there must be an agreement of adoption, and the child under the age of 15 shall not be an grounds for invalidation of adoption under each subparagraph of Article 83 of the Civil Act, such as the existence or extension of the legal parent-child relationship, and the adopted child shall not be an adoptive parent-child relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 9Meu1633, 1640, Jun. 9, 200).

B. In light of the health team, the background of the report of birth on the defendant, and the subsequent situation of custody, etc., in the case of the plaintiffs, it shall be deemed that the defendant had an obvious intent to establish a adoptive parent relationship with the defendant at the time of the report of birth on the defendant. Meanwhile, if the defendant's natural parents did not appear until the ten years have passed, and if the adoption is not acknowledged for a person under the age of 15 on account of the defendant's lack of explicit consent from the person with the right to face-to face-face, it would result in the need of custody and custody and the protection of the law. In light of all circumstances, it is presumed that the defendant's person with the right to face-to face-face of the defendant's adoption was the consent of the person with the right to face-to-face adoption, and it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's person with the right to face-to-face consent was satisfied with the actual requirements

Therefore, the birth report of the plaintiffs against the defendant should function as an adoption report, so there is a adoptive parent relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it is clear that there is a adoptive parent relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and as the plaintiffs have a benefit to seek confirmation, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-tae