In case where a minor files a lawsuit for invalidation of adoption against his/her legal representative, the minor may conduct the litigation with the consent of family council, and deliver the litigation documents to the minor applicant and the litigation procedures are not erroneous.

Customs according to the civil law at the time of the enforcement of the former Civil Act concerning the division of inherited property.

Article 29(2) of the Personnel Litigation Act, Article 51 of the Civil Procedure Act

Claimant

Defendant (Attorney Kim Tae-ap, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 68Reu19 decided July 15, 1969

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.

No. 1. In a case where a minor files a lawsuit seeking invalidation of adoption against his legal representative, it should be permitted to conduct the litigation with the consent of the family council. Thus, in the case where a minor petitioner conducts the litigation with the consent of the family council, it cannot be said that the legal procedure has been served on the requester and it cannot be said that the legal procedure has been initiated. Thus, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the litigation acts conducted by the

No. 2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the adoption report in this case is the same as the fact that one of the parties to the case is alive after the death of the deceased, and determined that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the will of the deceased father's original father is a valid will satisfying the requirements, and that the executor reported the adoption, and that there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the deceased father's original father's original father's original father's original father's original father's original father's original father's original father's adoption report was made to the adoption of the defendant. In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the report in this case was made as an execution of the will, such as the author's arguments, that the deceased father's original father's original father's original father's will was willing to adopt the defendant before the birth, and the respondent was living together with the deceased father's original father's wife's original father's original father's original father's wife, and that the above adoption report was executed as a witness even if the above Kim's original will's original will.

No. 3. In light of the record, the testimony of the co-ordin of the same spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinary spinsp in which the fact that the adoption report cannot be considered to have been executed at the time of the death, and there is no illegality in violation of the rules of evidence in the original judgment.

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

Justices Han Young-gu (Presiding Judge)