If it is entered in a family register, presumption of paternity

If the respondent is entered in the family register as a person born between the non-claimed network (A) and the non-claimed network (B), the respondent is presumed to be the natural father of the above network (A), and the above network (A) was corrected at the time of the birth, and if the long time has passed, it is difficult to reverse the above presumption.

Articles 865 and 847 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

appellees

Seoul High Court Decision 82Reu35 delivered on April 18, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of an appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the appellant’s attorney.

The judgment of the court below stated that the defendant was entered in the family register as a person born on May 4, 1927 between the defendant and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 in accordance with each of the statements in subparagraphs 2 and 3-1 and 2 of subparagraphs 2 and that the defendant was presumed to be the natural father of the deceased non-party 1, and that the defendant was presumed to be the natural father of the deceased non-party 1, and that the non-party 1 and the defendant did not correct this part of the family register at the time of birth, which are consistent with the defendant's argument, and it is insufficient to reverse the above presumption in light of the fact that the long time has passed, and that each of the statements in subparagraphs 7 and 8-1 through 10 of the evidence Nos. 8 are not evidence supporting the claimant's argument, and that the court below's measures are just and there is no ground to find any error in the rules of evidence as pointed out in the process of the arguments.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal by the appellant’s attorney.

As shown in the claimant's argument, it is like the theory that the court below did not explicitly judge Gap evidence No. 12 and witness testimony of the court below. However, in light of the fact that the court below rejected the claimant's claim of this case, it cannot be viewed that the above evidence was rejected, and it does not affect the conclusion of this case, separate from the influence of whether the family register adjustment process has been properly handled or not. Thus, the court below did not make a decision on this issue, and there is no error of law in the omission of reasons, since the court below did not make a decision on this issue. All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)