[소유권이전등기말소][집4(1)민,021]
Public confidence in the Family Register
The statement in the family register concerning the date and time of the death of a natural person shall be presumed to have been true and correct, but if there is a counter-proof, it may be recognized otherwise.
Plaintiff (Attorney Kang Hong-gu, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant
Seoul District Court of the first instance, Seoul High Court of the second instance, 55 civilian 133 delivered on July 5, 1955
The final appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Defendant’s ground of appeal is that the court below’s decision to reverse Nonparty 2’s exercise of parental authority over Non-Party 4 was legally constituted with the consent of all family council members in March of the year, and that Non-Party 1’s death was proved by the records on the family register, and it is unreasonable to disregard the establishment of the family council on January 18, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and that it is difficult to reverse the witness’s testimony without any legal ground, even if Non-Party 1 was unable to participate in the judgment at the time of death, the court below’s decision to reverse Non-Party 2’s exercise of parental authority over Non-Party 4’s non-party’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party’s non-party-party’s non-party-party’s non-party-party’s non-party-2’s non-party-party-party’s non-party-party’s non-party-party’s non-party-party-2’s non-party-party’s non-party-party-party-party-2’s ownership.
In this case, according to the copy of the family register No. 1, the non-party 1, who was a member of the plaintiff's family council, stated that the non-party 1 died on March 6, 4287 due to the non-party 6's testimony, its explanation is somewhat insufficient, but the court below acknowledged the non-party 1's death on March 3, 4287 due to the non-party 6's witness's testimony that the non-party 1 died on March 3, 4287, and then the contents of No. 1 cannot be done in light of the fact that the non-party 1's statement cannot be done on the non-party 1, and since the legal number of the members of family council is not less than 2, not more than 3, it is possible to recognize that the non-party 1 was a legitimate decision of the family council which constituted the non-party 20,000, and the non-party 2's appeal cannot be dismissed on the grounds that the judgment is groundless.
Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allocation of Kim Dong-dong