Whether only a report of birth as a natural father can be an effective adoption (negative)

As the claimant (A) living together with the non-party deceased and reported as if he was born between the claimant (B) and the wife (the wife) in order to create and enter the family register upon the birth of the non-party deceased, who was born by the non-party deceased, who was born by the non-party deceased and born between the deceased and another male, it cannot be said that the claimant had the intent to adopt the respondent and the requirements for adoption such as the consent of the non-party deceased, who was the mother of the non-party who was a minor under 15 years of age at the time

Articles 869 and 883 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Meu45 Delivered on November 9, 1982

Claimant 1 and one other

Attorney Long-term et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 83Reu108 delivered on December 19, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellee.

The grounds of appeal by the respondent's attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on macroficial evidence, took care of the defendant, who was living together with the non-appellant from October 10, 1965 to the non-appellant, and the non-appellant was born to the non-appellant on November 24, 1960. The defendant formed a family register upon the age of entrance into a national school, and recognized the fact that the respondent made the birth report as if he was born between the claimant 1 and the non-appellant 2, and then recognized the validity of adoption by the birth report. In order to establish the adoption, the appellant intended to adopt the defendant as the child, and the defendant was a minor under the age of 15 at the time of the above birth report, so all the requirements concerning adoption have to be met, such as accepting the adoption by the non-appellant, and the court below did not prove any other evidence other than the above requirements, and thus rejected the respondent's allegation that there was no error in the misapprehension of facts and the record.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)