A. Whether the adoption is effective in the case of a report of birth of the natural father in lieu of the report of adoption, although there was an obvious intent to establish an adoptive parent relationship and the actual requirements for adoption have been satisfied (affirmative)

B. Whether the existence of the adoptive parent relationship can be asserted in the case where the adoption was recognized as effective as described in the above Paragraph (a), but there is a final and conclusive judgment on the existence of the biological parent relationship between the parties (negative)

A. In a case where the parties have an obvious intent to establish a adoptive parent relationship and the actual requirements for the adoption are satisfied, if the natural father has a birth report instead of the adoption report, the adoption is effective even if there are some errors in the form.

B. Even if the adoption is recognized as effective as referred to in paragraph A above, if there is a final and conclusive judgment on the denial or existence of the parental relation between the parties, the existence of the adoptive parent relationship cannot be asserted after the final and conclusive date.

A. Article 878 of the Civil Act: Article 865 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Meu86 delivered on February 23, 198 (Gong198, 593) 89Meu1108 delivered on July 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1791) 91Meu153 delivered on December 13, 1991 (Gong192, 517)

Plaintiff

Defendant Kim Semesters, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Changwon District Court Decision 92Na1470 delivered on October 16, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that there was a adoptive parent relationship between the above non-party 2 and the defendant on February 26, 1940, and gave birth to the plaintiff and the non-party 3. The above non-party 1 gave birth to the defendant who was a child on January 28, 1958. The above non-party 1 died on January 3, 1979, and the above non-party 2 became an inheritor of the above non-party 1 after the birth report as the father's father and the non-party 1. The above non-party 2 was accepted a request for confirmation of existence of parental relation against the defendant, and the judgment was affirmed on August 5, 1987. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that there was a adoptive parent relationship between the above non-party 2 and the defendant, and the non-party 4 gave testimony on the ground that the non-party 1 did not have any other intent to adopt the adoption.

In the event that the parties have an obvious intent to establish a adoptive parent-child relationship and the actual requirements for adoption are satisfied, if the report of birth of the natural father exists instead of the report of adoption, it shall be interpreted that the adoption is effective even if it is somewhat erroneous in the form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 77Da492, Jul. 26, 197; Supreme Court Decision 89Meu108, Jul. 27, 1990).

However, according to the court below's decision, upon the death of the non-party 1 on January 3, 1979, the non-party 2, who was his wife, was the birth report between the defendant himself and the non-party 1, and the defendant was the inheritor of the above non-party 1. According to the witness non-party 5's testimony at the first instance court and the court below's testimony rejected by the court below, the non-party 1 delivered only the plaintiff who was his wife and the non-party 3. The defendant was born between the non-party 2 and the non-party 4 on January 28, 1958. The defendant was raising his baby around 1959, and the defendant supported the above non-party 2 by living together with the non-party 2 after the death of the non-party 1. In light of the records, there is no circumstance to suspect the credibility of the testimony as above.

As can be seen, the above non-party 1 was born between the above non-party 1 and the non-party 4, and the above non-party 1 died, the above non-party 2, who was his wife, had reported the birth as his natural father and the non-party 1, and had succeeded to family inheritance. Even thereafter, if the defendant living with the above non-party 2 while living with the above non-party 2 and supported the above non-party 2, it is difficult to conclude that there was no agreement between the above non-party 2 and the defendant at the time of the report of birth.

In addition, even if the defendant's consent was not obtained at the time of the birth report, it becomes a ground for the revocation of adoption, and as the limitation period of the right to claim the revocation of adoption has already expired, whether the above non-party 4 consented to adoption cannot affect the existence of the adoptive parent relationship (in addition, according to the testimony of the defendant or the witness non-party 5, the non-party 4, who is the defendant's biological mother, died at July 1967, so the above non-party 4, who was already deceased at the time of the birth report, cannot obtain the consent of the above non-party 4).

Therefore, the court below erred in finding that the above non-party 2 had the intention to adopt at the time of the report of birth, and that the non-party 4, the mother of the defendant, consented to the adoption, did not have a adoptive relationship.

However, in cases where the parties have an obvious intent to establish a adoptive relationship between them, and it is recognized that the adoption satisfies the requirements for substantial establishment of adoption, the parties can not claim the existence of the adoptive relationship after the date of the final decision if there is a final decision to confirm the existence of the parental relation.

As determined by the court below, if a request for confirmation of existence of paternity filed by the above non-party 2 against the defendant was accepted after the report of the above birth and the decision became final and conclusive on August 5, 1987, the existence of the adoptive parent relationship cannot be asserted thereafter. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the adoptive parent relationship exists between the non-party 2 and the defendant is right and wrong in its conclusion and without any grounds for the argument.

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