(a) Whether the double family register is subject to the correction of Article 120 of the Family Register Act;

(b) In case a family register illegally compiled is cancelled, the effect of the marriage recorded therein; and

A. The correction of a family register in accordance with the permission of the family court as provided in Article 120 of the Family Register Act shall be interpreted as permitted so far as the correction is minor, obvious and there is no serious influence on the identity of the person concerned, and in addition, the family register shall be corrected in accordance with Article 120 of the Family Register Act in order to simplify the double family register as long as it does not affect the status, since the family register takes the principle of compilation of one person (Article 8 of the Family Register Act).

B. Marriage takes effect upon acceptance of a report by a public official in a family register, and the entry of a family register is not an effective requirement, and even if the illegally compiled family register is cancelled for the reason that it is dual family register, there is no complaint about the effect of marriage entered in the same family register.

Articles 120 and 8 of the Family Register Act, Articles 810 and 812 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court en banc Order 81Meu52 Decided October 10, 1981, 81Mo15 Decided March 9, 1982: Supreme Court Order 81Mo21 Decided October 15, 1981

(1) The Re-Appellant (Applicant)

Principal 1 and 6 others

Daegu District Court Order 88F8-8-14 dated March 14, 1988

The original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the record of the application for correction of the family register of this case, the purport of the application for correction of the family register of this case is that the plaintiff 1, who is the father of the re-appellant, is registered as the wife of the non-applicant and the above "A" register in the non-applicant's family register (hereinafter referred to as "the family register") and the above "B" register, and the plaintiff 2, who is registered as the wife of the non-applicant, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 1, and the plaintiff 3, the plaintiff 4, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 2, the plaintiff 3 and the above plaintiff 4, the plaintiff 6, the plaintiff 6, the plaintiff 1, the above 3 and the above family register of this case.

For this reason, the court below held that the Korean Civil Act prohibits a person who has a spouse from being married again (Article 810 of the Civil Act) and thus, once the person who has a spouse after completing a marriage report is unable to enter another person into the family register again. Thus, the purport of the re-appellant's application of this case is to request the re-appellant to register the principal 3 of this case as his spouse in the above "A" book where the re-appellant reported a marriage to the principal 1's spouse, and it cannot be said that the re-appellant applied for a non-permission of this Act. Thus, the court of first instance dismissed the application of this case.

It is interpreted that the above family register correction by the permission of the family court under Article 120 of the Family Register Act is permitted so long as the private person to correct the above family register is insignificant and obvious and there is no serious influence on the identity of the person concerned, and our Family Register Act takes the principle of one person's family register (see Article 8 of the Act), so double family register is possible to correct the family register in accordance with Article 120 of the Family Register Act in order to simplify the double family register unless it affects the legal status relationship. As determined by the court below, if the person in question is one of the above cases' family register stated in the above "A" and one of the above "B" registers, it is obvious that the above "this case's family register correction is not allowed by law," and it is not sufficient that the above "this case's family register correction is already recorded in the above "this case's family register," and it is not sufficient that the above "this case's family register's family register correction is already recorded in the above "one of the above cases's family register and one of one's legal domicile."

Therefore, the order of the court below that differs from this opinion is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the correction of the family register, and there is a ground to point out this issue, so the decision of the court below is delivered with the assent of all the parties involved in the destruction and return

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)