1. The Client's Crisis

At the time the client married her husband, she did not know that he had a child (the other party) from a prior marriage. Her husband falsely filed the child's birth registration as if the other party were a biological child born between the client and himself, and on the family relationship register, the client and the other party were listed as mother and daughter. After the death of the other party's biological mother, the child was raised by the biological paternal grandmother and others, and from around elementary school age lived together at the client's home, staying with the client for more than 10 years until moving out after marriage.

When the husband passed away, a crack formed in a relationship that had been maintained for decades. A serious conflict arose between the client and the other party over property left behind by the husband, including a building. The other party aggressively filed a petition for division of inherited property and a lawsuit for return of the legally reserved portion of inheritance (the minimum share guaranteed by law) against the client. During that process, the other party even called the client by her name instead of "mother" and hurled abusive language, saying, "I'll burn down the building." The client concluded that she could no longer maintain a legal relationship with the other party and came to Law Firm Jonjae.

2. Key Issues

The issues to be disputed in this case were complex.

First, the fact that there was no blood relationship between the client and the other party was clear from the DNA test results and the other party's own admission. However, even if a false birth registration as a biological child had been filed, if there was actual upbringing, the legal doctrine of "conversion of a void act" could give rise to the effect of an adoption. The other party strongly argued on the basis of this doctrine that "an adoptive parent-child relationship was established because I was raised for more than 10 years." If an adoptive parent-child relationship were recognized, the legal relationship could not be severed merely by the nonexistence of a biological parent-child relationship.

Second, even if an adoptive parent-child relationship were recognized, it had to be proven that there were grounds for judicial dissolution of adoption (the process of dissolving the adoptive parent-child relationship by court judgment). The Civil Act recognizes judicial dissolution when there has been grossly unfair treatment of the adoptive parents or other serious reasons making it difficult to continue the adoptive parent-child relationship. The key issue was whether the emotional conflict arising during the inheritance dispute alone would lead the court to recognize "serious reasons."

Third, the other side attacked the authenticity of the lawsuit itself, claiming that it had been filed at the instigation of the client's other children, who wanted to take all of the inheritance shares for themselves, and that the elderly client had been encouraged to do so. It had to be shown that the lawsuit was based on the client's own true intent.

3. Jonjae's Strategy

Attorney Noh Jong-eon, the firm's managing partner, anticipated that the other party would argue for the establishment of an adoptive parent-child relationship and devised a dual-layered strategy in advance: even if that relationship were recognized, he would still be prepared to show that the requirements for judicial dissolution were met.

First, DNA test results were submitted to establish the basic fact that no biological parent-child relationship existed. At the same time, it was argued that the client had never had a clear intention to adopt the other party, and that she had only performed the role of a stepmother in accordance with patriarchal custom.

However, in anticipation of the possibility that the court might recognize an adoptive parent-child relationship, greater emphasis was placed on proving the grounds for judicial dissolution. The circumstances were systematically organized and submitted to the court: after the husband's death, the other party did not even contact the client to ask how she was for decades and then filed a lawsuit over the inherited property; the specific abusive remarks made toward the client; the fact that there had been no contact or visits at all after the inheritance lawsuit; and that neither side had made any effort to restore the relationship. It was also conveyed that the client, in her 80s, strongly desired to end the relationship.

In response to the other party's claim that this was a "lawsuit instigated by the children," the client was given the opportunity to testify directly, showing the court the authenticity of the filing.

4. Result and Recovery

The court found that an adoptive parent-child relationship had been established, based on the fact that the other party had grown up receiving the client's care from childhood and that the client had participated as a mother in family events such as weddings. It held that the false birth registration had the effect of an adoption filing.

At the same time, however, the court focused on the fact that the emotions on both sides had become extremely strained during the inheritance dispute after the husband's death. Taking into account that the client strongly wished to sever the relationship, that there had been no contact or visits at all after the inheritance lawsuit, and that the parties only criticized each other without making any effort to restore the relationship, the court found that there were "serious reasons making it difficult to continue the adoptive parent-child relationship." A judgment was rendered confirming that no biological parent-child relationship existed between the client and the other party, as a means of dissolving the adoptive parent-child relationship.

The legal relationship that had been maintained for decades through a false birth registration was brought to an end. The client was able to move forward with the remainder of her life free from the burdens arising from a legal relationship with the other party.

If you are wondering how to respond in a similar situation, the outcome may differ depending on the specific facts of the case, so we recommend consulting a professional.

Attorney in charge: Attorney Noh Jong-eon, Managing Partner

To protect confidentiality, some details of this case have been de-identified to the extent that doing so does not affect the essence of the case.