2. The interest in filing a lawsuit to confirm the existence of the parent-child relationship with a relative under Article 777 of the Civil Act;

A. At the time of the enforcement of the former Civil Act, it is sufficient for both parties to continue or extend the adoptive parent, and it is not necessary to comply with the principle of sub-absing that the adopted child should be a woman of the same kind as both parties, and the adopted child should be a woman of the same kind as that of both parties, and the adopted child should not be deemed to violate the public order and good morals.

B. Article 26 of the Personnel Litigation Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the action for confirmation of the existence of the parent-child relationship under Article 35 of the same Act, stipulates the party and his legal representative, or the relatives under Article 777 of the Civil Act as the person who has the right to file a lawsuit. As such, the above prescribed relatives have such status relationship, barring special circumstances, and there is a benefit in the lawsuit to bring a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the father

Articles 877(1) and 103 of the Civil Act; Articles 35 and 26 of the Personnel Litigation Act; Article 777 of the Civil Act

Claimant

appellees

Daegu District Court (88D1786 Judgment) of the first instance

The original adjudication shall be revoked.

It is confirmed that there is no parental relation between the respondent and the other party 1 and the other party 2.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the appellees in the first and second instances.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. First, we examine the respondent's main defense of safety.

As the claimant is the ex post facto adoption of the deceased non-party 1, the respondent and his wife under his law, and the respondent did not go through legitimate procedures to select the ex post facto adoption of the plaintiff to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, and even if not, the adoption of the claimant to the non-party 1 of his claim to the non-party 1 of his claim to the non-party 1 of his claim to the non-party 1 of his claim to the non-party 1 of his claim to the non-party 1 into the non-party 1 of his claim to the non-party 1 of his claim to the non-party 1 of his claim to the non-party 1 is an invalid ex post adoption contrary to the public order and good customs of Korea. Thus, the claimant is not entitled to the non-party 1, and the respondent does not have any legal interest in his claim to the non-party 1 of his claim, and the respondent has already been removed from the family register of the non-party 1 of his claim to the lawsuit

Therefore, if we look at the case, (1) 1 of No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2 (No. 5), and Gap evidence No. 5 (Adjudication), respectively, have no dispute over each establishment, and gather all the purport of all the statements and arguments, 2 of the deceased non-party No. 1, the deceased on Jan. 23, 1948, and died on May 17, 1961 without the children of No. 1, 1961, 3 of non-party No. 1's claim et al. were found to be invalid on Aug. 8, 198, after the Busan District Court's permission to appoint a relative member and call-up of non-party No. 1, the defendant's non-party No. 1, who was the claimant's wife No. 4, and the defendant's non-party No. 1, who was the plaintiff's wife No. 1, did not have any reason to recognize that the two-party No. 1 and the other non-party No. 1, the defendant's defense were unlawful.

Next, as to the above (2) point, although the person who was born after the birth of paternity does not have the right to inheritance since he did not inherit the miscarriage of the former head of the family retroactively, he does not have the right to inheritance of the former head of the family. Thus, he has the right to inheritance of the former head of the family. Thus, he succeeds to the rights and obligations of the former head of the family, and succeeds to the ownership of the farmland within 1 information within 600 square meters belonging to the grave and the farmland within the 600 square meters and the land within the family register (Article 95 and Article 996 of the Civil Act). Meanwhile, Article 26 of the Civil Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the action for confirmation of existence of paternity pursuant to Article 35 of the Personnel Litigation Act, provides that the parties and their legal representatives, or relatives pursuant to Article 777 of the Civil Act as the person who filed the action shall naturally be entitled to bring the action for confirmation of existence of paternity due to adoption of the latter head of the family register, and thus, there is no interest in the respondent's lawsuit.

2. The following points are examined.

If Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 5, and official documents are presumed to have been authentic in the entire document, and Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 3-1, 4-2 (written request for detection), each statement of the court below's judgment, Kim Jong-ok, Kim Jong-ok, and defendant No. 3, respectively, and the whole purport of oral argument, the deceased non-party No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 are legal couples, and the non-party No. 1 died first on Jan. 23, 1948, and the non-party No. 1 began to live together with the non-party No. 5 without a marriage report from the beginning of the 1949, approximately one year after the filing of the claim, and even if the non-party No. 5 was transferred to the respondent who is his 20 years of age, due to the lack of his family register, the non-party No. 1, the respondent's natural father and non-party No. 2, cannot be acknowledged otherwise.

The respondent is not the natural father of the non-claim 1 and the non-claim 2, but the non-claim 1 was born between the plaintiff and the non-claim 1 and the non-claim 2, and the adoption was practically effective between the plaintiff and the non-claim 1 and the non-claim 2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case on the ground that there is no parental relation between the plaintiff and the non-claim 1 and the non-claim 2 is a legitimate 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 relationship

Therefore, in the case of this case, the defendant's 1 was examined first as to whether the defendant had the intention of adoption between 1 and 3, the defendant's 1 was the deceased's husband's report of birth, and the defendant's 1 was the deceased's husband's report of birth after the marriage. The defendant's testimony of the court below's best witness's report of birth like 1's house and 3's birth report cannot be adopted at the time when the defendant's report of birth was made. The defendant's statement of birth was made to 1's father and 1's mother's family register, and the defendant's statement of birth was made to 2's first time after the defendant's report of birth was made to 3's first time after the defendant's report of birth was made to 1's father and 2's first time before the court below's report of birth, and there was no reason to recognize the defendant's testimony of adoption as the defendant's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's testimony.

3. Conclusion

If so, the respondent was not born between the above deceased non-party 1 and the non-party 2, and is not his natural father, and since the birth report to the non-party 1 was not created between them, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation that there is no parental relation between them. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the plaintiff's claim of this case is unfair based on this conclusion. Since the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the plaintiff's appeal is revoked, the defendant's claim of this case is revoked and the expenses of this case are to be borne by applying Article 33, 9, Article 13 of the Family Litigation Act, Articles 96, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Song Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)