2016ddern 4934 Confirmation of the existence of paternity in lieu of a judicial dissolution of adoptive relations

1. No. 00 (19* Aged)

2. Gu00 (19* Aged)

Plaintiffs’ Address Busan

[Reference domicile of Plaintiffs]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff Law Firm

Labor* (19) (19* Aged)

Busan Address

November 4, 2016

November 25, 2016

1. We confirm that there is no natural relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on January 28, 1971.

B. On September 22, 1971, the plaintiffs were born on the same day with the consent of the head of the facility at the center for the protection of children in Busan, and the defendant was born on the same day with the consent of the head of the facility at the center for the protection of children in Busan, and the defendant completed the report of birth as of December 23, 1971 (hereinafter "the report of birth of this case").

C. The Defendant, from around August 1997 to November 1, 1997, withdrawn the entire amount of the money in the passbook with Plaintiff No. 00 (an amount equivalent to KRW 147, 628, 029) and set aside the said money, and then did not make any contact with the Plaintiffs until 20 years have passed since the withdrawal.

D. On June 2, 2016, the Defendant did not appear at all on the date of pleading without submitting any written reply, even when the instant complaint to the effect that the Defendant seeks dissolution of the adoptive relation was sent to around the day of pleading by living together with the Defendant on June 2, 2016.

【Attachment Statement of Grounds for Recognition, Entry of Evidence A 1 through 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Existence of paternity

Although the father (the father) of the defendant's family relations register is the plaintiff No. 00, and the mother (the mother) is the plaintiff No. 00 respectively, the fact that the plaintiffs were working for the defendant at the child protection center for the purpose of adoption is the same as the above fact that the plaintiffs were working for the defendant at the child protection center for the purpose of adoption. Thus, it is evident that each parental relation between the plaintiffs and the defendant does not exist.

3. Existence of benefit of confirmation

A. Relevant legal principles

A report of birth of a natural parent as the intent of the parties to establish a adoptive parent relationship, and if the actual requirements of adoption are met, the adoption takes effect even if the adoption was committed in the form thereof, and the adoptive parent relationship has the same contents as that of the natural parent relationship, except for the matters that can be resolved by the dissolution of adoptive relations. Therefore, a false report of birth of a natural parent in this case may play the function of a report of adoption by disclosing the adoptive parent relationship of a legal parent-child. In such case, in exceptional cases where it is necessary to resolve the adoptive parent relationship by dissolution of adoptive relation, a claim for confirmation of existence of paternity may be allowed by cancelling the family register itself in lieu of the dissolution of adoptive relation (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Meu1493, May 24, 2001, etc.).

B. Determination

In light of the above legal principles, the plaintiffs reported the birth of this case with the intention of adoption, and other actual requirements for adoption are satisfied, and the birth report against the defendant is also satisfied.

The effect of the adoption report seems to be acceptable.

However, as above, the defendant did not make all active efforts to improve the relationship with the plaintiffs, such as not receiving a written complaint of this case and not responding thereto for more than 20 years since the time when the plaintiff's deposit was withdrawn without permission and the house was collected, and the defendant did not want to improve the relationship with the defendant. In such a situation, maintaining the relation between the plaintiffs and the defendant's maintaining the relation with the adoptive parents already sentenced to punishment is only a more pain to each other. Thus, it is reasonable to view that there is a serious reason that it is difficult to continue the relation between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

Therefore, there exists a cause for judicial dissolution under Article 905 subparag. 4 of the Civil Act between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and as the Plaintiffs, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of existence of parental relation of this case in the sense of seeking judicial dissolution of adoptive relation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiffs' claims in this case are all reasonable, it is decided to accept them and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo