The family register correction for the simplification of double family register (affirmative)

Article 8 of the Family Register Act takes the principle of compilation by one person, so it is possible to correct the family register in accordance with Article 120 of the Family Register Act in order to simplify the same as it does not have any influence on the current status as the law does not allow.

Articles 8 and 120 of the Family Register Act

Re-appellant

The principal of the case and two others

Jeonju District Court Order 81Ra6 dated July 1, 1981

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds for reappeal are examined.

1. In light of the record, the summary of the application for correction of the family register is that the re-appellant was born without permission from the court on December 11, 1962, and the family register was recorded in the register with the permission of the court on December 24, 1962 (hereinafter 1 omitted) of the same year, and the family register was recorded in the register with the transfer of the family register from the permanent domicile of the Republic of Korea on September 30, 1971 to the Kim Chang-Eup (hereinafter 2 omitted) of Jeollabuk-do, the family register was recorded (hereinafter referred to as "A"), and the family register was recorded in the family register with the principal of the case of the case of November 5 of the same year and the birth of the principal of the case of the case of the birth and the principal of the case of the case of the third person.

However, the applicant found the fact that the applicant had already been entered in the family registry of the Gyeonggi-gun's Fluence (hereinafter 3 omitted) as the head of the family (the report of birth on December 9, 1941) in the incidental opportunity, and formed the family registry from the permanent domicile of March 10, 1973 to the Man Chang-Eup (hereinafter 4 omitted) of Jeollabuk-do's Pundong-si (hereinafter hereinafter referred to as "B"), and had dual family registry acquired double family registry. Thus, the applicant's dual family registry acquired double family registry as well as the applicant's cancellation of the whole entry of the family registry of the Australia (applicant) formed by the above permanent registry and changed the entry of the reason for the reason for the cancellation, the entry of the reasons for marriage, the principal 1, 2, and 3 of the case, and the family registry of the head of the family of the Australia, which was compiled by the original family registry.

2. On the other hand, the court below stated that the correction of the family register as provided in the Family Register Act is a correction within the single family register, and that the correction of the family register in order to simplify the double family register cannot be a method of permission of the court, and rejected the appeal of the re-appellant.

3. The purpose of a family register is to give public notice of the people's status, so it is desirable that the entry of the family register is consistent with the true status, but if an objection is made without permission by the entry of the family register that does not fit the truth, the entry of the family register causes confusion in the people's status or legal life, so the Family Register Act provides the procedure of correction in Articles 22 and 120 through 121.

The correction of the family register according to the permission of the family court stipulated in Article 120 of the Family Register Act shall be permitted only when the correction is insignificant and there is no serious influence on the identity of the person concerned, and there is no need or reason to limit it only to the matters within the single family register. Since our Family Register Act takes the principle of compilation of the single family register (see Article 8 of the Act), it is not permissible to correct the family register in accordance with this Article in order to simplify it as long as the law does not affect the personal relation.

As to the above case, if the family head-appellant listed in the family register of "A" is the same person, it is clear that the family register of "A" recorded in the family register of "A" has double family register and the family register of "B" cannot be permitted by law, and if the family register of "A" recorded in the new family register is cancelled, it is clear that the family register of "A" which is recorded in the cancelled family register does not affect the status of the re-appellant's person 1, 2 and the person 3 of the case in the cancelled family register, but it is clear that the family register does not affect the personal relation of the related person. Nevertheless, the above order of the court below whose opinion is different is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the correction of the family register, and the decision of "A" which is recorded in the family register of "A" which is recorded in the new family register shall be modified.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is delivered with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

[Attachment Appellant]

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young, Kim So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Kim So-young, Lee So-young