친생부인의 허가 청구와 출생통보제

This study examines the legal conflicts between the Permission to Deny Paternity system and the birth notification system. Following the Constitutional Court’s 2015 decision, the Civil Act was amended in 2017 to introduce a simplified procedure for denial of paternity. However, this system contains a problematic provision—Article 854-2(1) proviso of the Civil Act—which precludes petitioning for Permission to Deny Paternity if birth registration has already been effectuated. This provision creates a structural conflict with the birth registration obligation under the Act on Registration of Famly Relations, which mandates registration within one month of birth. The conflict has been further exacerbated by the implementation of the birth notification system in July 2024, which authorizes local governments to register births based on medical institution notifications when parents fail to fulfill their statutory registration duty. The current legal framework compels parents to contravene the statutory birth registration obligation to pursue the simplified paternity denial procedure. This situation compromises children’s fundamental rights, as they remain in legal indeterminacy without official birth registration during the parents’ application for permission to deny paternity. The framework subordinates children’s rights protection to procedural expedience. Through a comparative legal analysis of paternity presumption doctrines across multiple jurisdictions and an examination of birth registration systems designed to safeguard children’s rights, this study argues that the current system disproportionately emphasizes parental procedural interests at the expense of children’s welfare. Accordingly, this study concludes that Article 854-2(1) proviso of the Civil Act should be abrogated to allow permission for denial of paternity irrespective of birth registration status, thereby harmonizing the Permission to Deny Paternity system with the right of the child to be registered.