2018B20030 name

Appellant

A

Busan Family Court Order 2018No. 100167 dated July 12, 2018

July 27, 2018

1. Revocation of the decision of the first instance.

2 . 김천시를 등록기준지로 한 신청인 겸 사건본인의 가족관계등록부 중 사건본인의 이 름 " 규○ ( 圭O ) " 를 " 규○ ( 奎O ) " 로 개명하는 것을 허가한다 .

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Summary of grounds of appeal;

신청인 겸 사건본인 ( 이하 ' 신청인 ' 이라 한다 ) 은 2018 . 1 . 경 이 법원에 개명신청을 하 면서 신청인의 이름을 ' 규 ( 奎O ) ' 로 개명하려고 하였는데 , 개명신청을 의뢰한 법무사 사무실에서 실수로 한자를 ' 圭○ ' 로 신청하여 2018 . 3 . 28 . 위 한자로 개명 허가결정을 받았는바 , 신청인이 원래 원했던 한자로 다시 개명신청을 하는 것에 불순한 의도나 목 적이 있는 것이 아니고 개명신청의 남용도 아니므로 , 신청인의 이름을 표기하는 한자 를 ' 奎O ' 로 개명하는 것을 허가함이 상당하다 .

2. Determination:

It is reasonable to permit the opening of a name in principle unless it can be seen as an abuse of the right to request the opening of a name, such as where there is a considerable reason to permit the opening of a name, and the intention or purpose to commit a crime, or to avoid various restrictions under the laws and regulations is involved, etc. (see Supreme Court Order 2009S65, Aug. 13, 2009, etc.). Even if the applicant for the opening of a name was presented for personal evaluation or determination, if it is judged that the applicant was made in a temporary, interest, not careful, unless it itself is remarkably unreasonable in itself, it does not constitute a substantial reason for the opening of a name (see Supreme Court Order 2009S90, Oct. 16, 2009).

In light of the above legal principles, in addition to the current age and situation of the applicant recognized by the record, the applicant's intention, and the motive behind the application of this case, the name to be newly changed is anticipated not to be significant since only one person whose Korean name is the same, and thus, the instability in legal relations caused by this change is anticipated not to be significant. The resident registration number is given to all citizens, and the name is likely to cause serious social abolition or side effects due to the name, and it is likely to cause infringement on the individual's personal rights and the right to pursue happiness under the Constitution, even though it is excessively emphasized that the name may be strictly restricted. In addition, in light of the circumstances leading up to the filing of the application of this case, it is difficult to view that the applicant has obtained the name permit of this case one month prior to the filing of the application of this case as the purpose of the application of this case is to avoid or conceal the crime of this case, or to avoid any restrictions or to intervene in any abuse of the right.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the application of this case shall be accepted with due reasons, and the decision of the court of first instance shall be unfair with different conclusions, so it shall be revoked and the name of the applicant shall be permitted, and it shall be decided as per the disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-soo

Judges Cho Jae-sung

Judges Jeong-hee