At the time of reporting the adoption, it was not a relative under Article 777 of the Civil Act at the time of reporting the adoption, but is qualified as a party to a petition for adjudication to nullify the adoption of a person who

If the claimant for the adjudication on the nullity of adoption is the assistant of the respondent at the time of the request for adjudication on the nullity of adoption and is a relative under Article 777 of the Civil Act to the respondent or both sides, the claimant shall be entitled to file a request for adjudication on the nullity of adoption, and it shall not be deemed that it is only a third party who has no benefit to seek the adjudication on the nullity of adoption, unless there is a status relationship under Article 777 of the Civil Act between the respondent and his or her

Article 9 of the Family Trial Act, Articles 26 and 37 of the Personnel Litigation Act, Article 777 of the Civil Act

Claimant

Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 84Reu135 delivered on May 14, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

In accordance with Article 9 of the Family Litigation Act, the parties and their legal representatives under Articles 37 and 26 of the Personnel Litigation Act, or relatives under Article 777 of the Civil Act, may seek at any time a trial to invalidate the adoption. As legally confirmed by the court below, if the claimant is a principal of the respondent or a party other than the party who is the respondent or both sides at the time of the request for a trial of this case and falls under a relative as prescribed in Article 777 of the Civil Act, the claimant shall be entitled to request a trial to invalidate the adoption. As such, the claimant shall be entitled to request a trial to invalidate the adoption, and as such, it shall not be deemed that there was no status relationship as prescribed in Article 777 of the Civil Act between the respondent and the party other than the party who is the party at the time of the report of adoption, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that there is only a third party who has no interest in seeking a trial to invalidate the adoption of this case. The judgment of the court below contains a misunderstanding of legal principles

With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3:

According to the facts duly established by the court below, non-party 1, the defendant's two sides of the defendant, entered Japan-gun on Jan. 20, 1943 as a student soldier, and after Aug. 15, 1945, he was dismissed on Dec. 22, 1979 on Dec. 7, 1979 due to the expiration of the period for which the life or death is unknown. The defendant's report of adoption made to non-party 1 as the defendant's father and non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's rejection request and non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's rejection request and non-party 1's non-party 1's death or death was forged the adoption report, etc. of the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's request on Oct. 14, 1971, which cannot be viewed as an abuse of the right to request the adoption.

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju