In a case where a person other than a marriage was entered in another person's family register by a false report of birth, and the family register was entered in the family register formed in the family register due to the confirmation of paternity or the existence of paternity, and became the family register due to a final and conclusive judgment of confirmation of existence of paternity, whether a new family register may have a signal after the establishment of the new family register (affirmative), and the method of bringing his wife's name into the new family register.

According to Article 329 of the established rules of the family register, when a person whose name was entered in another person's family register by a false report of birth was entered in another person's family register, and the family register was entered in a legal branch, and finally confirmed existence of paternity between the other person and the other person, the decision shall be cancelled from the family register compiled into the family register. In this case, if the deceased person due to the above cancellation, if the deceased person becomes the deceased person due to the marriage under Article 781 of the Civil Act, the former father's report of birth shall be entered in the family register of the deceased father or the mother's report of birth. If the deceased person becomes the deceased person due to his death, the former father's report of birth shall be cancelled with the permission to correct the original father's family register and the new father's report of birth shall be deemed to have been entered in the previous family register and the new father's report of birth shall be deemed to have been entered in the family register and the new father's report of birth shall be deemed to have been entered in the new family register register.

Article 787, Article 865, Article 123 of the Family Register Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 92S13 decided August 17, 1992 (Gong1992, 3140)

Re-appellant

The principal of the case and three others

Seoul Family Court Order 98BB19-23 dated July 28, 1998

The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul Family Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The summary of the application for correction of the family register of this case was that the non-party 1, the mother of the non-party 2, who was born between the non-party 2 and the former husband, reported both the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 to the non-party 2's family register. After that, the non-party 2 confirmed the non-existence of paternity by filing a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of paternity against the non-party 2, and around that time, the non-party 2 became final and conclusive according to the above judgment and cancelled from the family register of the non-party 128-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul where the non-party 1's family register was formed as Australia, the non-party 1's mother was born to the non-party 1's birth to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the new family register of this case, were cancelled 3.

Therefore, the court below maintained the order of the court below that dismissed the application of this case on the ground that the cancellation of the whole family register and the establishment of a new family register under the premise that the establishment of a new family register shall be null and void, on the ground that the family register is null and void, and that the application of this case is dismissed on the ground that the cancellation of the whole family register and the establishment of a new family register shall not be accepted on the ground that the whole cancellation of the whole family register shall be null and void, and the establishment of a new family register shall not be accepted.

The decision of confirmation of existence of paternity relation between the other party and the former family head of family who had been entered into a family register by a false report of birth becomes final and conclusive (No. 329 of the established rules of the family register on February 11, 197). In this case, if the above cancellation becomes a person without family register due to the above cancellation, the former person's entry into the original family register upon the birth report of his father or mother (see, e.g., Supreme Court No. 212 of Jun. 24, 1983; No. 14 of Jan. 20, 1984; No. 297 of Jan. 20, 1984; No. 297 of Jan. 20, 1984; No. 297 of Jan. 20, 197; 200-19 of the new family register register whose birth report had not been entered into the original family register upon the birth report's birth report's new entry into the original family register (see, No. 37. 9 of the new family register).

If so, the order of the court below which did not make a decision on the invalidity of the father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's father's family

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)