[호적정정기각결정에대한재항고][집24(2)민,229;공1976.9.15.(544),9313]
Whether a change in the family relationship between B, “B,” “B,” and “B,” if a report of the most marital relationship between “B” and “B,” has been made to the double family register (a family register) in which “B,” was taken place differently from the original family register with “B,” if the family register is cancelled.
The entry “A” in the family registry “B” in which the reason for marriage was not indicated in the “B” in Australia, and there was no other legitimate marriage report, and the entry by the false report of the quantity of the family registry “B” in which “B” and “B” had been reported to Australia at the time of the family registry entry into the family registry, and the marriage between “B” and “B” cannot take effect between the two persons. Therefore, the status relationship according to the invalid marriage entry does not arise between the above two persons, and therefore, even if the family registry in which “B” was made to Australia, it shall not be readily concluded that the status relationship between “B” or “B” and their children brings about a son change in the status relationship.
Principal Re-Appellant
The principal of the case and four others
Seoul Family Court Order 76BB13,14,15,16,17 dated May 7, 1976
The original decision is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul Family Court Panel Division.
The grounds for reappeal are examined.
1. According to the transcript of the family register attached to the record (the non-party 1's domicile is omitted), the non-party 1's family register was born by the non-party 1's father in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted) on March 25, 1927 by the non-party 2's father's mother and the non-party 1's father's non-party 1's father's non-party 2, and the family register was recorded on the family register on April 4, 1927 by the report of the family register, and according to the other family register copy (the re-appellant's family register), the appellant filed a family register report under Article 179 of the military law of December 18, 1958, and entered the family register as the non-party 1's father's father's non-party 1's father's non-party 2's father's father's non-party 4) on the ground of the above case's birth (the defendant 1's mother 2) and the two children.
2. In this case, it is clear that the family register of the non-appellant as Australia is a second family register, and even at the time when the family register was established, there was no entry of the grounds for marriage in the column of the re-appellant of the above family register as Australia non-party 1, and there was no other reason to deem that there was a legitimate marriage report, the entry under the most effective report of marriage between the re-appellant and the defendant 1 at the time of the above family registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry registry.
3. Thus, although the original decision of the court below was a second family register with Australia as Australia, there is no evidence to regard it as null and void of marriage between the Re-appellant and the case principal 1, and if the above family register is cancelled, the above marriage is denied, and the above marriage has a significant impact on the status relationship. Therefore, the decision that the correction of the family register, such as the purport of the application, cannot be permitted, has been erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles of marriage and family register.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the case again.
Justices Hong Ma-sung (Presiding Justice)