The method of resolving the parent-child relationship with a natural father in case of a report of birth as a natural father in lieu of a report of adoption to establish a father-child relationship with a person who is not the natural father.

In a case where an adoption report is not made in order to establish a father-child relationship with a person who is not the father of a child, and a report of birth as a father-child is made in lieu thereof, even if the report does not take place by the report, the function of the adoption report should be deemed to have been performed to publicly announce the existence of the legal parent-child relationship. Therefore, in order to cancel such parent-child relationship, the adoption report shall be deemed to have been made by asserting that there is a cause of dissolution of adoptive relationship between them, and the adoption of the family register shall be entered in the dissolution of adoptive relation

Articles 865 and 905 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 85Meu86 Decided February 23, 1988 (Gong1988, 593)

Claimant

appellees

The appellant's appeal is dismissed.

Details of adjudication shall be borne by the appellant.

It is confirmed that there is no parental relation between the claimant and the respondent.

The trial expenses shall be borne by the respondent.

According to the statement of No. 1 (No. 1) which has no dispute over the establishment, the respondent can recognize the fact that the respondent was registered on the family register as born between the claimant and the claimant and the non-claim 1 on the birth date, and there is no other counter-proof.

As the cause of the appeal of this case, the claimant and the non-party 1 lived together with the claimant for several years on the premise of marriage, but the plaintiff did not raise any objection, and thus, the claimant has delayed the report of marriage with the non-party 1. The non-party 1 did not know of the above claim's relative relation around 1980, and want to take care of the defendant as he was born with the non-party 1 in 2 to 3 months after he was born. Thus, the claimant accepted it, and reported the marriage with the above non-party 1 on May 22, 1980, at the same time, the respondent reported the marriage with the non-party 1 on October 26, 1978 and the non-party 1 was born by the plaintiff and the non-party 1 on the premise of the above non-party 1's birth report to the respondent, and the plaintiff's testimony to the above non-party 1 on May 23, 198, without having agreed with the above non-party 1 on an unlawful act.

However, as seen above, in a case where the claimant did not make an adoption report in a way to establish a father-child relationship with the appellee who is not his father-child relationship, and the birth report as the father-child relationship between the claimant and the above non-party 1 on behalf of the claimant and the non-party 1 on behalf of the claimant, even though the birth report by the above report does not take place between the claimant and the respondent, it shall be deemed that the report of the birth of the above father-child relationship by means of the public notification of the existence of the legal parent-child relationship. Therefore, if there is a reason for the dissolution of the adoptive relation to the respondent, the claimant may resolve the parent-child relationship with the respondent by making a correction of the family register after the adoption of the adoptive relation by asserting that the respondent is a father-child relationship and the cause of the dissolution of the adoptive relation exists, as in this case, it shall not be said that the claimant's act as the father-child is a false entry of the

If so, the claimant's claim for adjudication on confirmation of paternity of this case is without merit, it shall be dismissed, and the contents of the adjudication shall be judged as per the order at the expense of the losing claimant.

Administrative patent judges, police officers' Docs and police officers' Doctrifs