Applicant

Principal of the case

Chuncheon District Court Order 2017Noz.137 dated October 19, 2017

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. Of the family relation register of the principal of the case (name 1 omitted), the registration shall be made as the father applicant (name 2 and resident registration number 1 omitted), Nonparty 2 (English name omitted), and the People's Republic of China of nationality (resident registration number 2)] in the family relation register column, and the sex of the principal of the case shall be changed from "○○○○" to "△△△△△."

1. Basic facts

According to the records, the following facts are substantiated.

A. On November 27, 2007, the applicant was in a legal relationship with Nonparty 1, who was the People’s Republic of China, and the principal of the case was born between the applicant and Nonparty 2.

B. On December 6, 2007, the applicant and the non-applicant No. 2 asked the non-applicant No. 2 to the non-applicant No. 4, and on December 6, 2007, the principal of the case reported the birth as he was born between the non-applicant No. 3 and the non-applicant No. 4.

C. The applicant was divorced from Nonparty 1 on July 19, 2014, and the applicant completed the marriage report with Nonparty 2 on August 12, 2014.

D. Upon the petitioner’s request, on May 27, 2015, the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment that “No parental relation exists between the principal of the case and Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4” (2014ddan3418), and on February 6, 2015, the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment that “the existence of parental relation exists between the principal of the case and the principal of the case and between Nonparty 2 and the principal of the case” (2014ddan12055), and each of the above decisions became final and conclusive.

2. Determination

A. The applicant asserts that since the principal of the case was born between the applicant and the applicant and the applicant and the non-applicant 2, the names of the parent in the family relations register of the principal of the case should be corrected to both the applicant and the non-applicant 2, and the sex of the principal of the case should be corrected to the same person as the

B. Article 104 of the Act on the Registration, etc. of Family Relationship (hereinafter “the Act”) provides for an application for correction of a family relation register as permitted by a family court, and Article 107 provides for an application for correction of a family relation register according to a final judgment. Since a correction of a family relation register according to a court’s permission is permitted in cases where a matter to be corrected is minor in light of the simplification of the procedure, a correction of a family relation register may be made only by a final judgment pursuant to Article 107 of the Act on the Registration, etc. of Family Relationship (see Supreme Court Order 93Du14, 15, 16, May 22, 1993, etc.).

However, an application for the correction of the name of the parent of the principal of this case as the true identity of the principal of this case constitutes a significant impact on the principal of this case under the Family Law and the Inheritance Law, and thus, Article 2 of the Family Litigation Act is stipulated, and thus, the family relation register cannot be corrected with permission

Furthermore, the sex of the principal of the case is corrected only when the applicant is aware of the principal of the case (see Article 3-624 of the former Family Register No. 3-624). There is no evidence to prove that the applicant is the principal of the case.

In the end, the claimant's assertion is without merit.

C. The applicant asserts that, if the principal of the case acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea by birth pursuant to Article 2(1)1 of the Nationality Act, it is erroneous for the principal of the case to file an application for correction of the family relation register with respect to the principal of the case under the premise that the principal of the case is a foreigner, etc., on the premise that the principal of the case is

Article 2(1)1 of the Nationality Act provides that a person whose father or mother is a national of the Republic of Korea at the time of birth shall be deemed to have acquired the nationality of the Republic of Korea at the same time of birth. In addition, Article 3(1) of the Nationality Act provides that a person who is not a national of the Republic of Korea and is recognized by his or her father or mother who is a national of the Republic of Korea is a minor under the Civil Act of the Republic of Korea, and both the father or mother is a national of the Republic of Korea at the

As can be seen, the Nationality Act separately regulates the acquisition of nationality by birth and the acquisition of nationality by recognition. In addition, in the case of a person other than a marriage, the relationship between the mother and the father has arisen simultaneously with the birth, but there is no legal parent-child relationship without recognition in the relationship with the father (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 66Da1251, Nov. 29, 196; 84Meu73, Sept. 25, 1984). In light of this, in order to acquire the nationality of the Republic of Korea simultaneously with the birth on the ground that the father is a national of the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article 2(1)1 of the Nationality Act, it is insufficient to say that there is natural blood relationship between the father and the father in order to obtain the nationality of the Republic of Korea.

Accordingly, Article 429 of the Regulations on Family Relationship Registration (Enforcement, Feb. 1, 2015) of the Supreme Court, which provides the method of the report of birth on a child born between Korean and foreign women, provides that a family relation register may not be prepared only with the report of birth of the father in the case of a child born out of wedlock between Korean and foreign women. In the case of a child who is a minor, a family relation register may be prepared at the time the child acquired nationality by filing a report of additional recognition with the Minister of Justice in accordance with the Nationality Act by reporting the recognition procedure to the Minister of Justice pursuant to the Nationality Act (Article 1.1 (a)). This Rule also provides on the premise that the “child” under Article 2(1)1 of the Nationality Act is “child in legal parent-child relationship,” and it cannot be said that there is a violation of the Constitution or superior statutes, contrary to

4. Conclusion

Since the decision of the first instance is justifiable, the appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Hyun-chul (Presiding Judge) Lee Young-young