In the report of birth of a person other than marriage, whether the recognition comes into effect in case where the birth of a child born with the consent of the birth father written his father with his father’s birth report (negative)

The recognition of a father of a child born out of wedlock shall either report whether it is in accordance with Article 60 of the Family Register Act, or report the birth of the father to a person other than marriage in accordance with Article 62 of the Family Register Act, and even if the father has reported the birth with the consent of the father, this cannot be deemed as the father's report of birth or the report of recognition. Thus, it shall not be deemed as a legitimate one's father's report of birth as the father's father's report of birth or an erroneous statement of the family register is consistent with the substantive relationship. It shall not be deemed as

Articles 60 and 62 of the Family Register Act

Claimant

appellees

Daegu District Court of First Instance (86d. 510, 87d. 104 Judgment)

1. The part concerning the principal appeal filed by a petitioner in the original trial shall be revoked;

2. He/she shall confirm that the denial of paternity does not exist between the claimant, respondent and the respondent.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, parts arising from a main trial shall be borne by the respondent in both the first and second instances.

The part of the original adjudication concerning the main adjudication shall be revoked.

It is confirmed that there is no parental relation between the claimant (limited to the claimant, Appellee, hereinafter referred to as the claimant), the respondent (limited to the claimant, hereinafter referred to as the respondent) and the respondent.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the respondent in the first and second instances.

(Appellants only appeal the main trial and do not appeal the second trial, and in the trial, only the main trial is judged).

1. According to the statement of evidence No. 1-1, without dispute over the establishment of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is in a marital relationship with the plaintiff No. 1, and the defendant is in a marital relationship with the plaintiff No. 2. However, each statement of evidence No. 1-1 and No. 3 (the report of birth) without dispute over the establishment of the plaintiff No. 1-1, and witness No. 3 (the report of birth) of the court below and witness No. 2 of the court below's decision in light of the whole purport of arguments as a result of the examination of the plaintiff No. 1, the plaintiff No. 2 of the defendant et al. were born of the plaintiff No. 14 of Aug. 14, 1986 (the birth of Sep. 26, 1980) and the defendant's report of birth is a person other than a marriage, so the claimant's name should be stated in the column of the claimant No. 2, the plaintiff's name as the plaintiff No. 1, who was the plaintiff's child born and it cannot be confirmed by law.

2. Accordingly, the respondent and the non-party 2 filed a report of birth at around 1975, when non-party 2 met with the claimant, and around September 26, 1980, when the non-party 2 delivered a child to the defendant and took care of the defendant, with the consent of the claimant on August 14, 1986, and the report of birth was filed with the claimant on August 14, 1986, and the above report of birth is effective as recognition of the birth or the above report of birth is consistent with the substantive relationship. Thus, the claimant's claim for confirmation of existence of the paternity is groundless. Since the non-party 2 stated in the above report of birth as stipulated in subparagraph 2-1 through 8 (each envelope and contents), it is unreasonable to view that the plaintiff's non-party 3 submitted a report of birth to the non-party 2 as legitimate birth relation, and that the non-party 2 was a child born out of wedlock or a legitimate one mentioned in the above report of paternity between the claimant and the non-party 2.

3. If so, there is no legal parental relation between the claimant and the respondent. Thus, the principal appeal by the claimant seeking confirmation in order to correct the entry on the family register is justified, and it is unfair to accept it. Since the part concerning the principal appeal by the claimant in the original appeal is unfair differently from this conclusion, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 9 of the Family Trial Act, Article 13 of the Personnel Litigation Act, Articles 96, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Full-time (Presiding Judge) and Full-time (Presiding Judge)