If the father of the child was born and brought up as the father of the child, the propriety of the claim for confirmation of the father of the adoptive parent relationship and the existence of the father of the child

Unless there are special circumstances, it is presumed that the consent to the adoption was made even with the natural parents of the above infant, barring any special circumstance, if the biological parent of the child was adopted as the father of the child as the father of the child. Therefore, the adoptive parent relationship between the claimant and the child who is the defendant was established, and as long as the family register is the same as the parental relation, it cannot be said that the claim for the confirmation of the existence of parental relation which denies the legal parent-child relationship by cancelling the entry of the family register, except that it can be resolved by the dissolution of adoptive relation.

Article 878 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da492 delivered on July 26, 197 (Gong82225) (Gong593 delivered on July 23, 198 (Gong822) (Gong593 delivered on February 23, 1988), Article 878(6) of the Civil Code, Article 878(6) of the Civil Code, Article 878(6) of the Civil Code, Section 1547, 153, 253, 211Gong567, 219)

Claimant 1 and one other

appellees

The claimant's claim is dismissed.

Trial costs shall be borne by the claimant.

A ruling to confirm that there is no parental relation between the claimant and the respondent.

청구인들은 이 사건 심판청구원인으로서, 피청구인이 청구인들의 친생자로 호적부에 기재되어 있으나 실제로는 청구인들이 집 대문앞에 버려진 피청구인을 주어다 양육하다가 청구인들의 친생자로 출생신고를 하였을 뿐 청구인들과 피청구인 사이에 각 친생자관계가 존재하지 아니한다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 공문서이므로 그 진정성립이 추정되는 갑 제1호증(호적등본), 갑 제2호증(주민등록표등본), 심리의 전취지에 의하여 그 진정 성립을 인정할 수 있는 갑 제3호증(편지)의 각 기재와 증인 이하용의 증언에 심리의 전취지를 종합하면, 청구인 1은 1954.4.19. 망 청구외인과 혼인신고를 하고 그 무렵부터 부부로서 동거하며 그들 슬하에 4녀를 출산하였으나 (장녀는 1971.2.3. 사망함) 청구외인이 1965.10.22. 사망한 후 1966.2.24. 청구인 2와 혼인신고를 하고 그 무렵부터 부부로서 동거하며 그들 슬하에 2녀를 출산한 사실, 청구인들은 그와 같이 슬하에 아들이 없어 고심하던 차 1972.10.31.경 청구인들의집 대문앞에 성명 미상자들 사이에서 갓 태어난 피청구인이 버려져있는 것을 발견하고 피청구인을 데려다 양육한 사실, 청구인들이 그때부터 약13개월 남짓동안 피청구인을 양육하였으나 피청구인의 친생부모가 나타나지도 아니하고 아무런 연락도 없자 청구인들은 피청구인을 양자로 삼기로 마음먹고 청구인 1이 1973.12.17.에 이르러 편의상 피청구인이 청구인들 사이에서 1972.10.31.에 출생한 것처럼 출생신고를 하여 호적부에 그대로 기재된 사실, 그런데 청구인들은 피청구인이 커가면서 집에 있는 돈이나 책 등을 절취하여 집을 나가는 등 말썽을 부리자 피청구인의 위 호적기재를 말소하기 위하여 이 사건 청구에 이르른 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고 달리 위 인정에 반하는 증거가 없다.

According to the above facts of recognition, the claimant's assertion that there is no blood relation between the claimant and the respondent should be the same as the claimant's assertion that there is no blood relation between the plaintiff and the respondent, on the other hand, the claimant reported the birth of the natural father and the mother's de facto father and the mother's mother's father in lieu of the adoption report with the intent to take the defendant as the adopted one, and at the time they leave the defendant's home before the claimant's home, the claimant was expected to have made the defendant as the defendant, and the plaintiff was willing to raise the defendant well, and therefore the acceptance for the adoption was made. Therefore, the above birth report against the respondent was somewhat erroneous in the form

Therefore, the adoptive parent relationship between the claimant and the respondent shall be established, and the adoptive parent relationship shall have the same content as the parental relation in law except that the adoptive parent relationship may be resolved by the dissolution of adoptive relation. Thus, the claimant's claim for the dissolution of adoptive relation may be filed on the ground that there is a cause of judicial dissolution of adoptive relation against the defendant. As in this case, the claimant cannot claim the confirmation of existence of parental relation which is denied by cancelling the statement of the family register in which the adoptive parent relationship between the claimant and the defendant is announced, as in this case, the statement of the family register in the family register where the adoptive parent relationship between the claimant and the defendant is announced. Thus, the claimant's claim in this case shall be dismissed

Administrative patent judges No. 500 (Presiding Judge)