배천조씨숙위공파보 무효
1. The part of the claim for nullification of AP as to the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff except the above dismissed part.
1. The plaintiff is a member of the clan, as recorded in the Diplomatic Book, which was published since 1716, of the plaintiff's assertion.
Nevertheless, the Defendant forged Ampa (1975 publication) as if the Plaintiff was not a large-scale descendant, and based on this, spreads false facts such as “Dsebook is the same as Dmpa, and Ampa is a true copy, and the Plaintiff is not a large-scale descendant,” thereby impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation.
Therefore, Ampha shall be null and void, and Ampha shall be recovered and discarded.
2. Lawsuits for confirmation of the legitimacy of a claim for confirmation of invalidity of Ampha may be instituted only when, in the event of disputes or conflicts of interest concerning the present rights or the existence of legal relations, it is effective and adequate for the parties to confirm it by judgment to eliminate the risks or instability of their legal status, and the assertion of simple facts cannot be subject to a lawsuit for confirmation.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da25413, Oct. 8, 1991). Moreover, a lawsuit seeking a confirmation of facts with respect to a document verifying legal relations pursuant to Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act is permitted for the following reasons: (a) the authenticity of the document proving legal relations becomes final and conclusive, which makes it impossible for the parties to dispute over the authenticity of the document; and (b) the dispute itself or at least is significantly helpful for the settlement of the dispute itself.
Therefore, in a lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of a deed, the "documents proving the legal relations" refers to documents that can prove the existence of a certain legal relationship directly from the contents of the statement, so the document proving the past factual relations does not fall under this, and in addition, in order to be lawful, the benefit to seek confirmation of the truth of the deed should be recognized.
Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53714 Decided December 14, 2001 and Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53714 Decided June 14, 2007