The case recognizing the liability to pay consolation money for the adopted child, which was duly selected by submitting a false adoption report to the person who was registered as the post-help of another person

If the claimant is already selected as the ex post facto adoption of the non-claimer Gap, but the adoption report is not made on the family register, and the defendant does not report the death of the above Party Eul, and if the respondent submits a false report as if he was selected as the ex post facto adoption of the above Party Eul by the above Party Eul, and thereby becomes registered as the adopted adoption on the family register, the adoption between the defendant and the defendant should be null and void due to the lack of such agreement, and it is obvious that the claimant has suffered mental suffering due to the adoption report of invalidity, and therefore the respondent is obligated to do so.

Articles 883 and 751 of the Civil Act

○ Kim

○ Kim

1. On June 1, 1953, between the respondent and the non-party 1, the respondent and the non-party 1, the adoption that was reported to the president of the Young-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun on June 1, 1953

2. The respondent shall pay 1,00,000 won to the claimant and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from May 18, 1990 to the full payment.

3. The claimant's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. The trial expenses shall be divided into four equal parts, one for which it is paid by the claimant, and the remainder by the respondent, respectively.

Paragraph 1 of the above Article and the respondent shall request the petitioner to pay the amount of KRW 3,00,000 and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of the judgment to the date of full payment.

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1-3 (each copy of the family register No. 5), Gap evidence Nos. 3 (No. 5-2), Gap evidence No. 6, Gap evidence No. 7 (Agreement), Gap evidence No. 4 (excluding the part rejected after the statement of evidence No. 3), and the whole purport of the examination on the testimony of the above witness No. 1-2, the non-party No. 1-2 (the non-party No. 5-2) did not report the adoption of No. 1-5 (the non-party No. 1-2), the non-party No. 5-2 (the non-party No. 1-2), the non-party No. 1-2 (the non-party No. 5-2), the non-party No. 1-2 (the non-party No. 3-2), the non-party No. 6-party No. 1-2 (the non-party No. 1-party No. 5-2), and the non-party No. 1-party No. 5's.

Therefore, the above adoption made between the defendant and the non-party 1 shall be null and void because there is no agreement on adoption of the adopted child. The true bilateral claimant, the non-party 5's son of the non-party 5's children, who could not report the adoption, due to the above fact that the adoption report was made invalid, shall be clearly in light of the empirical rule, and therefore the respondent shall be liable to pay the above amount in cash, and the defendant shall be liable to pay the above amount and damages for delay at the rate of 5 percent per annum from May 18, 1990 to the full payment day, which is the next day of the above decision. Thus, the claimant's claim of this case shall be accepted within the above recognized scope of recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed, and the decision shall be made in accordance with Article 9 of the Family Trial Act, Article 13 of the Personnel Litigation Act, Article 87 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 92 of the Disposition.

Administrative patent judges Park Dong-con (Presiding Judge) Index