(a) The criteria to distinguish whether an application is filed by a final judgment or by permission of the court for correcting a family register;

(b) If a report of birth of a person who has not been unemployed has been accepted and entered in the family register, the method of correcting such entry in the family register; and

A. Whether or not the family register to be corrected has a serious effect on the family register law or inheritance law is based on whether the method of direct litigation is stipulated in Article 2 of the Family Litigation Act with respect to the existence or absence of the family relation relation to the matters to be entered in the family register to be corrected, and the matters to be judged as a family litigation case as stipulated in the above Article 2 of the Family Litigation Act shall be considered to have a serious effect on the Family Litigation Act or inheritance law, and as to such matters, an application for correction of the family register can only be filed according to the final judgment pursuant to Article 123 of the Family Register Act, and it is reasonable to view that the correction of the entry in the family register with respect to those matters which cannot be decided pursuant to Article 2

B. As to the act of arranging the family register after accepting the report of birth of a person who has not been registered in the family register, the method of direct litigation is not only prescribed by the Family Litigation Act, but also by other laws or Supreme Court Regulations, but also cannot bring a lawsuit against a deceased person or bring a lawsuit against a deceased person, so the correction of the entry in the family register on such matter is bound to be dealt with in accordance with Article 120 of the Family Register Act.

Article 120, Article 123 of the Family Register Act, Article 2 of the Family Litigation Act

Supreme Court en banc Order 93S14,15,16 Dated May 2, 1993

Re-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the principal of the case

Changwon District Court Order 93BB10 Dated December 19, 1994

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal of an applicant's agent are examined.

1. The court below held that the statement in the statement written by the non-appeal 1 alone was born from the Masung-gun on December 12, 1938 by the non-appeal 2 report by the non-appeal 1 and that there is no other evidence to recognize the principal of the case recorded in the family register as a person with no permission. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence. There is no ground to challenge the above determination of the court below.

2. 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. Article 123 of the Family Register Act provides that the correction of the entry in the family register according to the permission of the court shall be permitted only when the matter to be corrected is minor in light of the simplification of the procedure. Thus, with respect to the matter that may have a serious effect on the family law or inheritance law, it shall be considered that the application for correction of the family register can only be made according to the final judgment pursuant to Article 123 of the Family Register Act. Whether the matter to be corrected has a serious effect on the family register law or inheritance law or not is provided for in Article 2 of the Family Litigation Act shall be based on whether a direct litigation method is provided for in the above Article 123 of the Family Register Act with respect to the existence or absence of the family relation relation relation to the matter to be corrected, and as such, the application for correction of the family register can only be made according to the final judgment pursuant to Article 123 of the Family Register Act or inheritance law.

However, as in the case of this case, the method of direct litigation is not only prescribed by the Family Litigation Act, but also by other laws or Supreme Court Regulations, but also cannot bring a lawsuit against a deceased person or a deceased person. Thus, the correction of the entry in the family register as to this matter is bound to be dealt with in accordance with Article 120 of the Family Register Act.

In light of the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below did not decide that the adjustment of the family register for the deceased shall be made in accordance with the final judgment as provided in Article 123 of the Family Register Act, and that the permission of the family court as provided in Article 120 of the Family Register Act cannot be obtained, but it has presented a general theory on the method of correcting the applicant's application for correction of the family register of this case on the ground that there is a lack of data to view the above person as the deceased person as the deceased person, and therefore, the court below ruled that the entry of the family register which the court below accepted the report of the birth of the person who did not have the actual record is possible only by the final judgment, and there is no reason to argue that the

4. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)