[1] The punishment shall apply to a person who is given public notice in the name of the other party in a family register (=a person who is given public notice in the name of the other party) in a case where the other party has engaged in economic and social activities in the name of the other party without any particular objection for 40 years as if the other party's

[2] The case holding that the punishment is not permissible under the principle of good faith for a child of the same child to ask for adjudication on confirmation of non-existence of paternity between punishment and punishment for correction of the family register where a child of the same child has engaged in economic and social activities under the name of the other party without any particular objection for 40 years as if he/she was the other party's status by imitateing his/her personal relationship on the family register

[1] The punishment and punishment shall be imposed upon a person who is registered in the name of the other party in a family register, in cases where the other party has engaged in economic and social activities in the name of the other party without any particular objection for 40 years as if the other party's status was copied in his/her family register.

[2] The case holding that the punishment shall not be permitted under the principle of good faith to claim a judgment on the absence of paternity against a child of the same child in order for the child of the same child to correct his/her family register, where the same child has obtained various licenses and qualification certificates in the name of the other party, and has engaged in economic and social activities in order to make the other party to report the other party's status as if he/she were his/her status, and subsequent to a judgment on the nullity of marriage and the absence of paternity in order to coincide with the other party's status on the changed resident registration with the other party's status on the family register

[1] Article 15 of the Family Register Act / [2] Articles 2 and 865 of the Civil Act, Article 15 of the Family Register Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorneys Park Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others

July 27, 2006

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

It is confirmed that there is no parental relation between Defendant ○ and Defendant 2, 3, and 4.

1. Confirmation of parties;

The parties shall reasonably interpret and confirm all the purport of the complaint, including the contents and cause of the statement and the claim recorded in the complaint (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da26773, Dec. 20, 1996, etc.). The plaintiffs asserted that their birth father is Defendant Lee Dong-ho and that there is no parental relation between them (hereinafter the above defendants only) and that there is no parental relation between them. The plaintiffs filed the suit of this case to seek confirmation. The plaintiffs stated in the complaint of this case that "the resident registration number of Defendant Lee Dong-ho is the resident registration number on their family register (the resident registration number omitted)" which was originally the name of their birth and currently is the resident registration number of Lee Dong-ho, which was used in their own name, as the address of the defendant Lee Dong-ho's resident registration number, the plaintiffs stated "Dong-ho vibration (number omitted)" as the specific name of this case, and therefore, the plaintiffs stated that the plaintiffs' birth father of this case is the defendant Lee Dong-ho, who is not the defendant's birth of this case.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs, on the family register, were registered as the father of this title, and the mother of the non-party 1, who was born among them. However, the facts are that the defendant Lee Ho-ho was the father of the plaintiffs, and the living father of the defendant, etc. is the child of this title, even though the defendant Lee Dong-ho was appointed as the child of this title, the defendant Lee Dong-ho demanded that the above ○-ho age and academic background should be necessary to maintain the qualification of the ocean-going crew from the above ○on around 1962, and that the above ○-ho should allow the above ○on to run as the defendant Lee Il-ho, but the above ○on started to run as well as the relationship between the ocean-going crew members, and the surrounding ○on or neighbors, and the above ○○-ho on around 1968, since the above ○-hoon reported the above ○on to the defendant this title, it does not exist as the relation between the defendant Lee Ho-ho and his living together for about 40 years.

(2) As to this, the defendant et al., instead of the above ○○○'s request, the above ○○○'s identity indicated on the family register is not the plaintiffs' living father but the defendant's living father. Thus, the above ○○'s identity on the family register is not the plaintiffs' living father but the defendant's living father's living father. Even if ○○○'s identity is not so, the above ○○○'s social activities have been conducted for about 40 years after the resident registration was made under the name of this ○○'s family register based on the defendant's ○○'s family register. Based on the family register under the defendant ○○'s above, the mother and his children were registered on the defendant ○○'s family register, and a large number of legal and economic relations based on the above status relationship have been formed for over several hundred years, and thus, it is a defense that denying

B. Facts of recognition

(1) Defendant 0 and the father of the above ○○ and the above ○○○ were the deceased Nonparty 2, who was the deceased Nonparty 2, and Defendant 0 was registered in the family registry whose permanent domicile is the Maeng-dong, the Mari-dong, the Mari-dong, and the above Mari-dong, respectively. However, when the above family registry was destroyed due to the 6.25 incident, Defendant 0 was registered in the Mari-dong, the former △△△△ and the legal domicile of the head of the family, and his name was transferred from the above Mari-si, the above Mari-dong, the Mari-si, the Mari-si, the Mari-dong, and the name was falsely reported from the above Mari-dong to the Mari-dong, and was re-established on March 31, 1954.

The actual life dates of Defendant ○ and ○○○, respectively, were listed on May 28, 193, and on December 3, 193, 1935, respectively, on the re-processed family register even though they were recorded on August 28, 1937 and December 3, 1940.

(2) Around 1962, the above ○ Ship was serving as a seafarer of a deadly named fishing vessel. However, when the above ○ Ship was enacted a boarding provision that prohibits a person from being issued a seafarer’s certificate, and the above ○ Ship was unable to escape more, the above ○ Ship’s personal information, which had already completed the military service, was the personal information of the Defendant ○○, and thus, the above ○ Ship was subject to an agreement between the Defendant ○ and the above ○ Ship, by obtaining and using a seafarer’s certificate under the name of Defendant ○○, and the above ○ Ship continued to serve as a seafarer.

From this point of time, the above ○○ line began to use the status of Defendant ○○, and thereafter, the above ○○ line referred to the above ○○ line as “○○○,” rather than “○○,” and both family members and neighbors referred the above ○ line as “○○,” respectively.

(3) After that, around 1968, Defendant Lee ○ and Lee ○-ship filed the first resident registration report, and Defendant Lee ○-soo filed a false report as if they were the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, thereby Defendant Lee this-○, upon which the above ○○○○ had the resident registration certificate stating the personal information of the above ○○○○○○○○○○, and the above ○○○○○○ was each issued with the resident registration certificate stating the personal information of the above ○○○○○, and thereafter, Defendant Lee ○-ho

(4) Meanwhile, Defendant 0: (a) initially married with Nonparty 3 and completed the marriage report on March 2, 1968; (b) on March 7, 1968, the birth report was completed with respect to Nonparty 4 born between them; and (c) as seen earlier, Defendant 0 and the above ○○ Line changed their status on the resident registration; and (d) so as to coincide with their personal status and family status, the above ○○ Line filed a judgment seeking confirmation of nullity of marriage against Nonparty 3 under the name of Defendant 0, the above ○○ Branch Branch of 75D113 against Defendant 3 on April 21, 1976 on April 21, 1966, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 7, 1968; and (b) Defendant 00 and Nonparty 1 did not appear to have been appointed with Nonparty 3’s birth relation with the above ○○○○○ and his spouse’s birth relation with the above 17th judgment.

According to each of the above final judgment, the above non-party 3 and the above non-party 4 were cancelled on May 12, 1976 and June 27, 1979, respectively. On July 28, 1976, the marriage report was completed with the above non-party 1. On the above non-party 3's family register, the marriage report was completed on July 16, 1976 between the above non-party 3 and the above non-party 3, and the recognition report was made on June 27, 1979, and they were registered as their spouse and friendly (the defendant ○ reported the marriage and recognition).

(5) After the issuance of the resident registration certificate under the name of ○○ Ship, Defendant ○○ had engaged in various legal and economic activities as ○○ Ship. After the issuance of the resident registration certificate under the above name of ○○○ Defendant 2, Defendant 2 obtained both the passport, the captain, and the marine officer’s license in the name of ○○○○, and the various licenses and qualification certificates, such as the passport, the captain, and the marine officer’s license. After organizing the family registration relationship as above, Defendant 2 and the above Nonparty 1 were registered with the Defendant, etc. born between the above Nonparty 1 and the above her grandchildren, he

[Reasons for Recognition: Each entry in Gap 1, 3, 9, and 12-1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 4, 5, and 28, Gap 11's video, 2, 2, 4, 5, and 28's testimony, defendant 0's personal examination result, the purport of the whole pleadings]

(c) Markets:

(1) According to the above facts, even if the defendant Lee ○ and Lee ○○ used the personal relationship on the family register by unlawful means, it does not accurately disclose the status relationship (name, age, etc.) between the defendant Lee ○ and Lee ○○ on March 31, 1954 compared to the family register prior to the destruction of the family register, even if the defendant Lee ○ and Lee ○○ on March 31, 1954 were to gather their personal relationship, and since around 1962, the defendant Lee ○ and Lee ○ on around 1968 reported the other person's personal relationship in a false manner and used the other person's status later changed without any objection on the part of the defendant Lee ○ on the basis of his own identity, and considering the fact that the above ○○○ obtained various licenses, qualification certificates, etc. under the name of this subparagraph and used the name indicating that it was an economic and social name, the defendant's request for the disclosure of this subparagraph is without reason under the premise that the above defendant's name is the above defendant's name.

(2) Even if the family relation, which is published in the family register under this title, is the defendant's title, the above Paragraph (1) and the defendant 0's family relation against the above non-party 4, etc. who is one's natural father in order to take care of the family relation, cancelled the non-existence of the parent-child relation on June 27, 1979, and at the same time, notified the above non-party 4 on the family register under this title to the non-party 4 on the same day, thereby deceiving the court, thereby creating a new family relation, but trying to deny the paternity relation between the defendant, etc. and the defendant et al., does not differ from the final judgment of the court, and even if the paternity relation between the defendant 0 and the defendant et al. is denied, the above non-party 4 cannot be registered again as the natural father of this subparagraph due to the judgment on confirmation of existence of the father-child relation prior to this case's legal relation, and if the plaintiff's legal relation with the above defendant 4 et al., it could not be justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Transferability