Whether a report of paternity as to a person other than marriage can be made through the deceased (affirmative)

According to Article 26 (3) of the Family Register Act, a report of recognition cannot be made by proxy, and according to Article 62 of the same Act, a report of recognition as a natural father of a person other than a marriage has the effect of recognition, so even in this case, a report by proxy is not allowed, but it cannot be viewed that a report by a reporter is prohibited from being made based on his/her will.

Articles 36(3) and 62 of the Family Register Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Park Hun-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Appellee respondent 1 et al., Counsel for the respondent-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 88Reu352 delivered on March 29, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) The evidence of the court below was examined as a result of the record. The claimant has been living together with the non-claimer and the non-claimer's house from January 1, 1969. The defendant 1 was born on January 21, 1981; the defendant 2 was born on March 21, 1983; the defendant 1's school attendance time of the respondent 1 was different; and the non-claimer raised the birth report problem of the respondent; on November 1, 1986, the claimant consented to the birth report of the non-bandander restaurant located in Daegu City in Daegu City, as his family members object to the birth report and approved the birth report to the non-claimer's family members, thereby recognizing the fact that the non-claimer's birth report was made in the name of the claimant as the petitioner's death, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out by the appellant.

(2) According to Article 36(3) of the Family Register Act, a report of recognition shall not be made by proxy, and according to Article 62 of the same Act, a report of the father's father's father's father's father's father's mother's father's father's mother's father's mother's mother's father's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother'

Therefore, the appeal is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)