If the person injured in the family register is registered as the father of the family register, the father of the other reporter's request for confirmation.

If the deceased reports the person to be a child born between him/her and his/her wife, and is recorded mistakenly in the family register, another person may request the confirmation of the person.

Article 836 of the former Civil Code

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (4290 civilian joint32)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant, etc. confirms that the defendant is a father-and-child born between the father-and-child non-party 1 and the mother non-party 2.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc. in the first and second instances.

The plaintiff's attorney is seeking a judgment on the order Dong area, and the defendant et al.'s attorney is seeking a judgment dismissing public prosecution.

The method of de facto statement and evidence by both parties is the same as the factual time in the original judgment, and thus I cite this.

On July 12, 289, the plaintiff was born between the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 on August 9, 4258, and Defendant 1 was born between the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 on February 16, 4270, and both the plaintiff and the defendant were born between the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 on the ground that the plaintiff was the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1 were the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 on February 16, 4270. Thus, although the plaintiff was the deceased non-party 1 as the deceased non-party 1's inheritor, the deceased non-party 1 filed a report as the deceased non-party 1's inheritor, who was the deceased non-party 1's wife, and the plaintiff was merely the plaintiff's inheritor, but it was nothing more than the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of inheritance safety.

Then, in light of the following purport of testimony of Non-Party 5 and Non-Party 6 of the court below and the whole purport of oral argument between the parties as to the merits, since the contents of No. 1 of the statement of the court below acknowledged as the authenticity, the plaintiff left a book born on July 12, 4249 between Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 3 in the counter-party 3 in the counter-party 1. The defendant 2 of August 9, 4258 between the deceased Non-Party 2 in the counter-party 2 in the counter-party 2 in the counter-party 4 and the deceased Non-Party 2 of the 4270.2.

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the principal lawsuit shall be accepted because it is well-grounded, and the original judgment which has different conclusions is unfair and there is a reason to prosecute this case.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 386, 96, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Gyeong-chul (Presiding Judge)