1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows.

The plaintiff and J (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff, etc.") in Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court.

) Part of the Act is "Plaintiffs, Co-Plaintiff D and J (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiffs, etc.")."

) Following the first instance court Decision No. 11, No. 11, No. 4, and No. 5 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da79923, Apr. 26, 2013), the Plaintiffs’ assertion that a contract party’s change in the work following the order of correction does not constitute an infringement on the author’s right of integrity cannot be seen as a violation of the first instance court Decision No. 13, No. 11, which added the “No. 13.”

Next, the plaintiffs asserts that the administrative disposition cannot easily determine its illegality, and in relation to K, the administrative agency that issued the correction order of this case, even if it does not constitute infringement on the right of integrity of the author, shall be liable for damages caused by intention or negligence for the issuance of such administrative disposition. However, as seen earlier, insofar as it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiffs consented to the modification of the contents of the textbook of this case to the extent that it implements the correction order without any reason to be deemed null and void as a matter of course, although procedural defects exist, the modification of the contents of the textbook of this case pursuant to the correction order of this case does not constitute infringement on the right of integrity of the plaintiffs as well as relation to K, and therefore the above assertion cannot be accepted).

2. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed due to the lack of reasons.