Plaintiff (Attorney Park Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Yong-dae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 11, 2009

Busan District Court Family Branch Decision 2008Ra5444 decided April 14, 2009

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

There is no parental relation between the Defendant and the deceased non-party 1 (resident registration number 1 omitted, and place of registration: ○○○○ in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun) and the Defendant and the deceased non-party 2 (resident registration number 2 omitted and place of registration: ○○○○ in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as follows: ① evidence Nos. 9-1 to 4 of the evidence No. 9-1 to 10-2 of the evidence No. 10-2 of the evidence No. 1, and the witness Non-party 3 and Non-party 4 of the trial court, ② deleted from 5 to 16 of the judgment No. 5 of the court of first instance; ③ adding the following to the last part of 2.b. (3) of the judgment of the court of first instance (the second part of the judgment No. 6. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance) (the second part of the judgment No. 6. 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance). Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main text of Article 12 of the Family Litigation

2. Details to be added; and

In addition, around 1979, the deceased non-party 1 was living together with the defendant around 1986, who was living in his house and the deceased non-party 2. However, the fact that the non-party 3, the defendant's living mother, was living in the deceased non-party 1's house, and brought up the defendant by marriage with the defendant at the deceased non-party 1's house, as seen above. According to the evidence No. 5, the defendant can be recognized that the fact that the deceased non-party 1 was not registered in the family council of the deceased non-party 1's family council of the deceased non-party 1 and the defendant's living at around 1986 (the defendant's age at that time was only about 13 years old), since he was living in the family council of the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2, and the defendant's living relationship based on the family life, and thus, he did not meet the above requirements for adoption or ratification of the defendant's adoption.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)