In lieu of the report of adoption, the report of birth as a natural father and the effect of adoption;

In a case where Gap did not have the awareness of adoption report in adoption B, but he had the intention to adopt Eul, and also satisfies the practical requirements of adoption such as adoption acceptance by an adoption mediation agency that has protected Eul who is eight years of age at the time of adoption, the report of birth as Eul's natural father is invalid even if it was somewhat erroneous in the form or procedure of adoption.

Articles 865 and 878 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Da492 Decided July 26, 197 (Article 878(6)1547 of the Civil Code, Article 878(6)1547 of the Civil Code, Article 11533 house 25 ② 567Gong10219)

Claimant

appellees

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

Trial costs shall be borne by the claimant.

It is confirmed that the denial of paternity does not exist between the respondent and the other party than the claim.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent.

According to the statement of Gap evidence No. 1-1 (No dispute over the establishment), it is evident that the defendant is registered on the family register as if he was born with the deceased non-party No. 1 as his father and the mother of the non-party No. 2 as his mother.

The claimant, as the non-party 1, who is the husband of the claimant, and the non-party 2, who is his wife, have no child between him and his wife, was trying to report the birth of the plaintiff as the natural father of the non-party 2, and he was registered as the father of the family register as the plaintiff of the non-party 1, but the defendant and the non-party 1, who are not the plaintiff of the non-party 1, are claiming the confirmation of the existence of the non-party 1, as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the special representative of the plaintiff, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the special representative of the plaintiff, around January 1, 1976, the plaintiff did not report the birth of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the special representative of the defendant, and did not report the adoption of the child.

If the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 (No. 1-2), Gap evidence No. 2-1, 2-2 (resident registration card for each household), and Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2 (Entrustment of Detection) are gathered to all the purport of testimony and hearing by non-party No. 4, the witness except the deceased non-party No. 1 and non-party No. 2 were married on Jan. 16, 1974, but two years have passed since they were married on Jan. 16, 1974, they do not have a common sense between them. They were 8 years of age at the time of introduction of one woman of the fugitive Party in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, 1976, living in the same fugitive, who was attending the first year of Suwon National School, and were unable to know, and they did not report the adoption again with the adopted child welfare foundation's consent, but they did not report the adoption to 198 years of birth and the adoption.

Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, although the non-party 1 did not have the requisite form of adoption report in adopting the defendant, the defendant was willing to adopt the defendant, and the defendant is deemed to meet the substantial requirements of adoption such as obtaining the consent of adoption from an adoption mediation organization, which was an adoption mediation organization, which was protecting the defendant at the time of adoption, and thus, it shall be deemed that the report of birth of the defendant as the natural father of the defendant was effective as adoption even if the non-party 1 was somewhat wrong in the form or procedure.

Therefore, the appeal of this case filed by the claimant seeking confirmation that there is no parental relation between the claimant and the plaintiff, but there is no parental relation between the plaintiff and the plaintiff. The appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 13 of the Personnel Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act mutatis mutandis with respect to the bearing of trial costs under Article 9 of the Family Trial Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) Kim-hwan Kim Jong-jin