[1] The case where the entry in the family register can be corrected in accordance with Article 120 of the Family Register Act

[2] In a case where a person born between the husband and the present husband who was not divorced from the former husband is reported to the person who was married with the present husband at the latest, the period of birth of the person born between the former husband and the previous husband shall be delayed, and a correction of the record of the birth (negative)

[1] In light of Article 2(1) and (2) of the Family Litigation Act, it is reasonable to view that Article 2(1) and (2) of the Family Litigation Act applies for correction of a family register only by a final judgment pursuant to Article 123 of the Family Register Act with respect to the matters on which the family relation is to be corrected, on the basis of whether a direct litigation method is provided for in Article 2 of the same Act with respect to the existence or absence of the status relationship in relation to the matters on which the family register is to be corrected is to have a significant effect on the family law or inheritance law, and that the correction of the entry in the family register concerning those matters which cannot be adjudicated pursuant to Article 2 of the same Act can apply for correction of a family register with the permission of the court in accordance with Article 120 of the Family

[2] In a case where a person born between the former husband and the former husband was reported as a person during the marriage with the former husband late when the birth year of the child born between the former husband without any legal divorce, the former husband shall be presumed to be the person of the former husband pursuant to Article 844(1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, in principle, in a case where it is evident that the former husband cannot be arrested due to lack of the report of denial of paternity pursuant to Article 846 of the Civil Act, if it is obvious that the former husband cannot be arrested due to the lack of the report of denial of paternity, such presumption does not exist. Thus, if a person other than the marriage is permitted to correct the entry of the family register based on permission by considering the entry of the family register on the birth year as a simple statement of facts, this is unfair because it is not different from allowing the report of birth as the former husband without going through a trial of the parent-child relationship.

[1] Articles 120 and 123 of the Family Register Act, Article 2 of the Family Litigation Act / [2] Articles 120 and 123 of the Family Register Act, Articles 846 and 865 of the Civil Act, Article 2 of the Family Litigation Act

[1]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 14, 15, 16 decided May 2, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1402)

Seoul High Court Order 95S5 dated April 13, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1977)

Appellant (Attorney Yellow-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Principal of the case

Incheon District Court Order 97Nomm77 dated January 24, 1997

The appellant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

The summary of the reasons for appeal is as follows: although the principal of the case was born between the appellant and the mother on June 15, 1993, and one other on the birth of the principal of the case, and the principal of the case remains in a state where the above appeal and one other on the birth of the principal of the case remains in a state where no legal divorce is divorced, the above appeal and one on the birth of the principal of the case shall be presumed to be the person other than the above appeal and two on the birth of the principal of the case, and the appellant and one on September 3, 1994, after the marriage report were completed on September 13, 1995, and on November 2, 1995, the principal of the case was born on the birth report of the principal of the case and the other on the birth report of the principal of the case were recorded on the family register as if they were born on June 15, 1995, and the correction of the principal of the case was made only in accordance with the permission of birth or correction of the principal of the case.

2. Determination:

A. Therefore, Article 120 of the Family Register Act provides for the application for correction of the entry in the family register according to the permission of the family court, while Article 123 of the Family Register Act provides for the application for correction of the entry in the family register according to a final judgment. Since the correction of the entry in the family register according to permission of the court is permitted only when the matter to be corrected is insignificant in light of the simplification of the procedure, it shall be deemed that the application for correction of the entry in the family register can be made only by a final judgment in accordance with Article 123 of the Family Register Act. In light of Article 2 (1) and (2) of the Family Litigation Act provides that the method of litigation to resolve disputes over the occurrence, change, or extinguishment of the entry in the family register is limited, it is reasonable to apply for correction of the entry in the family register in accordance with Article 123 of the Family Register Act and Article 124 of the Family Register Act can only be permitted with permission of the court pursuant to Article 123 of the same Act.

B. If the principal of the case was born between the appellant and the defendant on June 15, 1993 without a divorce between the above appeal and the above appeal and the plaintiff on June 15, 1993, the principal of the case shall be presumed to have been the person other than the above appeal and the plaintiff 2 pursuant to Article 844(1) of the Civil Code. Therefore, in principle, in order to destroy such presumption, if it is evident that the above appeal and one other than the above appeal cannot be arrested due to the lack of circumstance as the appellant asserted, if it is evident that the plaintiff cannot be arrested the above appeal and two others due to the lack of circumstance, such presumption does not exist, so even if it should be confirmed by the action to confirm paternity and the existence of paternity as provided in Article 865 of the Civil Code, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff's entry in the family register should be permitted only after the birth report was made to have been entered in the court of birth for 195 years, and it shall not be considered to have been entered in the above case's family register.

C. Therefore, with respect to the correction of the birth year of this case, the method of direct litigation under Article 2 of the Family Litigation Act is stipulated (Article 2(1) of the Family Litigation Act is a case of denial of paternity, and Article 2(1) of the Family Litigation Act is a case of family class A, respectively, a case of confirmation of the existence of paternity, and a case of family class A, which may have a significant effect on the family law or inheritance law, so it is reasonable to view that an application for correction of the family register can only be filed according to

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the original decision that dismissed the application of this case on the premise that the correction of the family register of this case is the matter of permission is correct and the above appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)