beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
Purport
A. The Plaintiff did not report the birth of a person born between D E and F, and was living as D B (G birth was reported but the death was not reported after August 12, 1964).
B. The Plaintiff filed an application for correction of the date of birth from “G” to “D” in the Busan Family Court’s family register No. 2016No. 224, the date of birth from “B,” and the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s application on March 28, 2016, ruled that the Plaintiff’s conversion of the family relation register cannot be converted to the family relation register of the deceased-child, and the Plaintiff’s family relation register should be closed by filing a death report of the deceased-child, and the Plaintiff’s family relation
C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s mother E reported the death of August 9, 2016, and completed the report of birth (resident number H) in the name of “A” against the Plaintiff.
However, after the new report of birth, the plaintiff was not recognized as the academic background, degree, certificate of qualification acquired or entered into in the name of B, real estate, insurance contract, bank deposit contract, etc. which were living in B.
Therefore, the plaintiff seeks confirmation of the same person between the plaintiff and B in order to eliminate the risks of the plaintiff's rights or legal status.
Judgment on the defense of this safety
A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, the subject matter of confirmation is the current rights or legal relations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da17585, Aug. 23, 2013). The mere fact relevance verification does not have any interest in confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da23872, Dec. 8, 1992). Although the Plaintiff seeks confirmation as the same person as B, the Plaintiff himself/herself is premised on the premise that he/she is another person, and if the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the fact that the Plaintiff’s claim is the same person as B and the Plaintiff actually is the Plaintiff’s behavior, this is against the fact relevance.