[1] The method of correction in a case where the cancellation of double defense has a significant impact on the status relationship (=a final and conclusive judgment)

[2] In a case where the original family register did not contain any grounds for marriage, and a report of double family register was made by making a false report while making a false report despite the absence of a separate report of marriage, the effect of marriage is invalid (negative)

[3] In a case where a marriage has been entered in double hoscopic register, whether double hoscopic register can be arranged by correction of the family register (negative)

[1] The correction of a family register according to the permission of the court stipulated in Article 120 of the Family Register Act shall be limited to cases where the matter to be corrected is minor, and in cases where the matter to be corrected has a serious effect on the family law or inheritance law, it shall not be in accordance with a simple correction of a family register procedure, and it shall be possible to correct only by a final judgment, and in cases where the correction is made to simplify the illegal double family register with the original family register, if the correction has a significant effect on the family relation,

[2] In a case where there was no entry of a reason for marriage in the original family register, and even if there was no other legitimate report of marriage, a double family register was taken and a false report was filed at the original permanent domicile, the double family register alone cannot be effective as a marriage, and the marriage recorded on the family register is null and void.

[3] In a case where a double family register "B" contains a statement of nullity of marriage, such statement is not different from that of "A" where a legitimate reason for marriage is already entered, so if "B" cancels all the entry of the family register concerning nullity of marriage in the family register and then such entry is entered in the "A" family register, it would eventually result in a change in matters that have a significant impact on the status of the interested parties compared with the entry in the previous family register, and in such a case, it is not subject to a final judgment ("final judgment") but by a simple correction of family register, it cannot be arranged in a way of correction of the family register.

[1] Articles 120 and 123 of the Family Register Act / [2] Article 120 of the Family Register Act, Article 815 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 120 and 123 of the Family Register Act, Article 815 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Order 91S3 dated July 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2252) / [1] Supreme Court en banc Order 81S15 dated October 10, 1981 (Gong1981, 1451), Supreme Court Order 81Meu52 Decided March 9, 1982 (Gong1982, 469), Supreme Court Order 88S6 dated May 31, 198 (Gong198, 1034) / [2] Supreme Court Order 68Meu19 decided February 18, 196 (No 17-1, 209; No. 7099 decided July 28, 1970 (No. 1982, Dec. 36, 1976; 209Hun-Ga397, Jul. 29, 1976)

Re-appellant, applicant and principal of the case

Principal 1 and 11 others

Cheongju District Court Order 96Ra14 dated April 12, 1996

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The correction of a family register according to the permission of the court stipulated in Article 120 of the Family Register Act shall be limited to cases where the matters to be corrected are minor, and where the matters to be corrected have a serious effect on the family law or inheritance law, it shall not be in accordance with a simple procedure for the correction of a family register, and it shall be possible to correct only by a final judgment, and even in cases where it is intended to simplify the illegally and repeatedly, if the correction has a serious effect on the family relationship due to the correction, it may be corrected only by a final judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Order 81Meu15, Oct. 10, 1981; Supreme Court Order 81Meu52, Mar. 9, 1982; Order 8S6, May 31, 198; Order 91S3, Jul. 23, 1991).

The gist of this case's correction of the family register 2 is the above case's family register No. 6 of this case's family register No. 2 of this case's family register No. 3 of this case's family register No. 6 of this case's family register No. 9 of this case's family register No. 2 of this case's family register No. 9 of this case's family register No. 2 of this case's family register No. 9 of this case's family register No. 2 of this case's family register No. 9 of this case's family register No. 2 of this case's name No. 6 of this case's family register No. 9 of this case's family register No. 2 of this case's family register No. 9 of this case's new family register No. 2 of this case's family register No. 9 of this case's family register No. 2 of this case', the above new family register No. 2 of this case's family register No. 2 of this case'

However, in a case where there was no entry of a reason for marriage in the original family register, and even if there was no other legitimate report of marriage, the two family register was made with double family register and the two false reports were made at the original permanent domicile, the entry of double family register alone cannot be effective as a marriage, and the marriage entered on the family register is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 68Meu19, Feb. 18, 1969; 70Meu9, Jul. 28, 1970; 76Ma267, 270, Jan. 21, 192; 91Meu238, Jan. 21, 1992; 2, “the above person’s family register No. 370, Jun. 23, 1960; 3, 1992; 2, “the above one’s family register No. 5, the above one’s family register No. 2, the above one’s original family register No. 5, as the above one’s original family register No. 37.

Therefore, the double family register 'B' contains an invalid marriage, and it does not have a nature to transfer it to the original family register of the above case 2, where the above case principal 2 and the above case 2 had a legitimate reason of marriage. (In addition, the above case principal 3 also has a double family register because it is entered in the non-applicant 3's family register whose legal domicile is Lee Dong-si ( Address 4 omitted) on October 23, 1978, and it has a double family register because it is entered in the non-applicant 3's family register whose legal domicile is Lee Dong-si ( Address 4 omitted). The above records are deleted in the above case principal 3's family register, and if the above statement is transferred to the original family register of the above case principal 2, it shall not be allowed to change the matters that have a significant influence on the personal relations of the persons concerned compared with the previous family register, and in this case, it shall not be allowed to correct the above case's family register in the way of a double marriage register correction, etc.

The order of the court below to the same purport is partially inappropriate, but it is just in its conclusion, and the ground for re-appeal to criticize the order of the court below on the premise that the correction of the original case is possible cannot be accepted

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)