Open Decision Ledger · Family & inheritance law
Adoption by birth registration and the preclusive force of a final non-existence judgment
Supreme Court, Sept. 21, 2023, 2021Meu13354 (judgment)
Case name: 양친자관계존재확인
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a party reported a child as their own born child with the intention of adopting, and all substantive requirements of adoption were met, does the adoption take effect despite a defect in form, may an action to confirm the non-existence of the parent-child relation be brought to extinguish the adoptive relation, and once a judgment granting that action becomes final, can the existence of the adoptive relation still be asserted?
Holding
Yes to the first two questions, and no to the third. A birth registration made with the intention of adopting publishes the adoptive relation, and where all substantive requirements of adoption are met it gives effect to the adoption even if the form is slightly wrong. Where special circumstances make it necessary to extinguish the adoptive relation, for example because the adoptive relation needs to be dissolved, an action to confirm the non-existence of the parent-child relation, which has the register entry itself deleted and denies the legal parent-child relation, may be allowed; and once the judgment granting that action becomes final, the existence of the adoptive relation cannot be asserted from the date of finality.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
당사자가 입양의 의사로 친생자 출생신고를 하고 입양의 실질적 요건이 모두 구비되었다면 형식에 다소 잘못이 있더라도 입양의 효력이 발생한다. 이때 친생자 출생신고는 법률상의 친자관계인 양친자관계를 공시하는 입양신고의 기능을 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the parties filed a birth report of a natural child with the intention of adopting and all the substantive requirements for adoption are satisfied, the effect of adoption arises even if there is some error in formality. In that case, the birth report of a natural child serves the function of an adoption report that publicizes the adoptive parent-child relationship, which is a parent-child relationship in law.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천가정법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon Family Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
당사자가 입양의 의사로 친생자 출생신고를 하고 입양의 실질적 요건이 모두 구비되었다면 형식에 다소 잘못이 있더라도 입양의 효력이 발생한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the parties filed a birth report of a natural child with the intention of adopting and all the substantive requirements for adoption are satisfied, the effect of adoption arises even if there is some error in formality.
Factors
- 당사자가 입양의 의사로 친생자 출생신고를 하고 입양의 실질적 요건이 모두 구비되었다면
- 파양에 의하여 양친자관계를 해소할 필요가 있는 등 특별한 사정이 있는 경우
- 인용판결이 확정되면 확정일 이후부터는 더 이상 양친자관계의 존재를 주장할 수 없다
- 친생자 출생신고는 법률상의 친자관계인 양친자관계를 공시하는 입양신고의 기능을 한다
Unofficial English translation
• Where the parties filed a birth report of a natural child with the intention of adopting, and all the substantive requirements for adoption are satisfied
• Where there are special circumstances, such as the need to dissolve the adoptive parent-child relationship by a dissolution of adoption
• Once the granting judgment becomes final and conclusive, one may no longer assert the existence of the adoptive parent-child relationship from the date it becomes final and conclusive
• The birth report of a natural child serves the function of an adoption report that publicizes the adoptive parent-child relationship, which is a parent-child relationship in law
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1977. 7. 26. 선고 77다492 전원합의체 판결(공1977, 10219)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc judgment 77Da492 decided July 26, 1977 (Gong 1977, 10219)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1977. 7. 26. 선고 77다492 전원합의체 판결(공1977, 10219), 대법원 1993. 2. 23. 선고 92다51969 판결(공1993상, 1077), 대법원 2001. 5. 24. 선고 2000므1493 전원합의체 판결(공2001하, 1392), 대법원 2012. 12. 13. 선고 2011다69442, 69459 판결, 대법원 2014. 7. 24. 선고 2012므806 판결(공2014하, 1665)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What circumstances amount to the special circumstances that make an action to confirm the non-existence of a parent-child relation necessary to extinguish an adoptive relation?
A later decision on the retrial grounds in Article 451(1)(x) of the Civil Procedure Act or on the preclusive force of a judgment confirming the non-existence of a parent-child relation would require this entry to be read again. An amendment to Articles 865, 869 or 878 of the Civil Act would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What circumstances amount to the special circumstances that make an action to confirm the non-existence of a parent-child relation necessary to extinguish an adoptive relation?” vs Independent “How does the final judgment affect rights and obligations that accrued under the adoptive relationship before it became final?”
The primary asks which circumstances count as special circumstances for dissolution, while the independent asks how the final judgment affects rights already accrued before finality.
당사자가 입양의 의사로 친생자 출생신고를 하고 입양의 실질적 요건이 모두 구비되었다면 형식에 다소 잘못이 있더라도 입양의 효력이 발생한다. 이때 친생자 출생신고는 법률상의 친자관계인 양친자관계를 공시하는 입양신고의 기능을 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Incheon Family Court, in its retrial judgment of 11 June 2021, held that the judgment of the Seoul Family Court in case 76Deu522, which confirmed that no parent-child relation existed between Party A, the deceased and the plaintiff, had no preclusive force over the question of the adoptive relation between the deceased and the plaintiff that the judgment under retrial had decided. It therefore found no ground for retrial under Article 451(1)(x) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that where the deceased reported the plaintiff as their own born child with the intention of adopting, the final judgment confirming that no parent-child relation existed between them meant the plaintiff could no longer assert the adoptive relation, and the judgment under retrial could not decide the existence of that relation against it. It found that the court below had misconceived the law on the retrial grounds in Article 12 of the Family Litigation Act and Article 451(1)(x) of the Civil Procedure Act, in a way that affected the judgment, and it reversed and remanded, unanimously.
Distinguishing conditions
- A birth registration made without the intention of adopting, or one in which the substantive requirements of adoption are not all met, so that no adoptive effect arises.
- A case in which no special circumstances make it necessary to extinguish the adoptive relation, since the Court allowed the non-existence claim only where such circumstances, for example a need to dissolve the adoptive relation, exist.
- A case in which the judgment granting the non-existence claim has not yet become final, since the preclusive effect runs only from the date of finality.
Record verification notes
Establish first whether the earlier birth registration was made with the intention of adopting and whether the substantive requirements under Articles 865, 869 and 878 of the Civil Act were met. Then read the earlier judgment or ruling for its exact terms and its date of finality, and ask whether the party asserting the adoptive relation was bound by it. Note that the Court treated a judgment pronounced in 1976, before the 1977 en banc decision that overruled Supreme Court Decision 67Da1004, in the same way.
From the official text
Points at issue
입양의 의사로 친생자 출생신고를 하고 입양의 실질적 요건이 모두 구비된 경우, 입양의 효력이 발생하는지 여부(적극) / 파양에 의하여 양친자관계를 해소할 필요가 있는 등 특별한 사정이 있는 경우, 친생자관계부존재확인청구가 허용되는지 여부(적극) / 양친자관계를 해소하기 위한 친생자관계부존재확인청구의 인용판결이 확정된 경우, 양친자관계의 존재를 주장할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the effect of adoption arises where the parties filed a birth report of a natural child with the intention of adopting and all the substantive requirements for adoption are satisfied (affirmative) / Whether a claim for confirmation of the nonexistence of a parent-child relationship is permissible where there are special circumstances, such as the need to dissolve the adoptive parent-child relationship by a dissolution of adoption (affirmative) / Whether one may assert the existence of the adoptive parent-child relationship where a judgment granting the claim for confirmation of the nonexistence of a parent-child relationship, brought to dissolve the adoptive parent-child relationship, has become final and conclusive (negative)
Summary of the holding
당사자가 입양의 의사로 친생자 출생신고를 하고 입양의 실질적 요건이 모두 구비되었다면 형식에 다소 잘못이 있더라도 입양의 효력이 발생한다. 이때 친생자 출생신고는 법률상의 친자관계인 양친자관계를 공시하는 입양신고의 기능을 한다. 따라서 파양에 의하여 양친자관계를 해소할 필요가 있는 등 특별한 사정이 있는 경우 호적기재 자체를 말소하여 법률상 친자관계의 존재를 부인하게 하는 친생자관계부존재확인청구가 허용될 수 있다. 이와 같은 양친자관계를 해소하기 위한 친생자관계부존재확인청구의 인용판결이 확정되면 확정일 이후부터는 더 이상 양친자관계의 존재를 주장할 수 없다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 인천가정법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon Family Court.
Provisions referred to
민법 제865조, 제869조, 제878조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger