[1] The meaning of "honorary" under Article 764 of the Civil Code, and whether Article 764 of the Civil Code applies to an association which is not a juristic person, such as a clan (affirmative)

[2] Whether a claim for prohibition of infringement is recognized as a precautionary measure against infringement on a personality right (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that where a clan founder of a school juristic person has obtained permission for establishment of an individual for the chairperson of a clan as a founder of a school juristic person in accordance with the detailed procedures for establishment of a school juristic person, it cannot be viewed that the school juristic person has damaged the reputation of the clan because it indicated the founder as an individual other than

[1] The term "honorary" under Article 764 of the Civil Code refers to an objective evaluation received from a world, such as a person's character, virtue, reputation, and credit. In particular, in the case of a juristic person, it infringes on the social evaluation that the honor is damaged as it is not suitable to raise the person's social reputation, reputation, and credit. In the case where the honor of a juristic person is damaged, the juristic person may file a claim against the other party for an appropriate measure to restore the reputation along with compensation for damages caused by the tort, and the same applies to a non-juristic person who has the ability to sue

[2] The right to honor held by a person (the same shall apply to the case of a race) may be deemed a kind of personality right. In light of its nature, it is difficult to completely recover damage by means of measures such as monetary compensation or disposition necessary for restoring honor after infringement, etc., and it is difficult to expect the effectiveness of compensating for damage. As to such infringement of personality rights, the right to claim prohibition of infringement, such as suspension and prevention, can be acknowledged as preventive measures

[3] The case holding that since a clan which is a founder of a school foundation shall organize a separate board of directors at an ordinary general meeting to delegate its affairs concerning the establishment of the school foundation, the board of directors passed a detailed procedure for the establishment of the school foundation, and as long as Gap, the chairperson of the clan, was the representative of the school foundation in the name of an individual and obtained the establishment permission for the school foundation in its name, it shall be reasonable to view that the clan was aware that Gap, the representative of the clan, could already be indicated as the founder of the school foundation at the time of the establishment of the school foundation, unless there are other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the clan was aware that he would be the founder of the school foundation, and it shall not be deemed that there was a de facto establishment of the school foundation in the "school operation plan" issued and distributed by the school foundation in its name, or that Gap was a representative of the clan, and it shall not be deemed that the founder was

[1] Article 764 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 214 and 764 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 751 and 764 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1450 delivered on June 14, 198 (Gong1988, 1020) (Gong1990, 760 delivered on February 27, 1990) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da40614, 40621 delivered on April 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1486)

○○○ ○○○ Head of the District Court (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

△△ Private Teaching Institutes

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Yoon Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant joining the defendant)

Defendant 3 and 8 others, the deceased Nonparty 1’s lawsuit taking over the lawsuit (Attorney Yellow-il, Counsel for the defendant’s intervenor’s intervenor’s intervenor)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na27082 delivered on March 26, 1996

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed. This part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s Intervenor 1 and Defendant’s Intervenor 2’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in full view of the evidence adopted in the judgment, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff clan made contributions to the land of the clan centering around the clan's village as basic property to preserve the tombstones of the deceased non-party 1 (OOO), and made contributions to 15,000 among the above land as basic property of the defendant corporation, and made contributions to 15,000 above land as basic property of the defendant corporation, and formed articles of incorporation for the establishment of the school foundation by non-party 2, etc. who was the chairperson of the plaintiff clan, and completed detailed procedures, after submitting an application for the establishment permission of the school foundation as representative from the President of the literature Delivery on June 26, 1969, and completed the establishment registration of the defendant corporation on July 7, 196 of the same year with the establishment permission of the defendant corporation. According to the above facts, the defendant corporation did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment registration of the defendant corporation and the establishment registration of the non-party 2, etc.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2 by the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 2’s Intervenor 2

A. The term "honorary" under Article 764 of the Civil Act refers to an objective evaluation received from the world, such as a person's character, morality, reputation, and credit. In particular, a juristic person's reputation is an infringement of its social reputation and credit. In a case where the reputation of the juristic person is damaged, the juristic person may file a claim against the other party for an appropriate measure for recovery of reputation along with compensation for damages caused by the tort (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1450, Jun. 14, 198). The same applies to a non-juristic person who has the capacity to file a lawsuit like a clan (see Supreme Court Decision 89Da12775, Feb. 27, 190), and a person (the same applies to the case of the clan)'s right to reputation, which can be viewed as a kind of personality right, and it is difficult to expect the complete prohibition of infringement of personality rights such as monetary compensation or remedy necessary for recovery from damages (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da164164, Jun. 14, 19696).

B. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the △ High School maintained and operated by the defendant corporation issued and distributed the "school operation plan" as shown in the attached Table 1 through 3 of the court below each year, and that in the future, the defendant corporation could enter the "non-party 2" as the "non-party 2" as the "non-party 2" in the above "school operation plan" book, and according to the above facts, the fact that the plaintiff established the defendant school foundation, an educational institution for the education of the clans by contributing the clans property in accordance with the resolution of the general meeting of the clans, which is related to the reputation and social credit of the members of the clans, and thus the founder's status can be viewed as a kind of personality right, and it stated the "non-party 2" as the "non-party 2's founder of the defendant corporation" in the above "non-party 2's plan for the operation and distribution of the defendant corporation's personality rights" in the name of the defendant corporation.

C. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the records, the plaintiff's clan will be established by holding an ordinary general meeting on August 21, 1968 and contributing to the land of the clan which is the present high school site, and the non-party 2 decided to establish the school foundation as the members of the non-party 2 and the non-party 14 who are the chairperson of the clan. The board of directors for the establishment of the school foundation formed according to the above resolution adopted detailed procedures for the establishment of the school foundation, such as the non-party 2 and non-party 6 for the prompt progress of authorized businesses on December 7 of the same year. Accordingly, the non-party 2, the chairperson of the plaintiff clan, submitted an application for the establishment permission of the school foundation on March 5, 1969 to the non-party 2 as the representative of the non-party 2's establishment or the non-party 2's representative for the non-party 2's establishment of the school foundation without the permission of the non-party 2's establishment.

Nevertheless, the court below's order that the founder of the above "school operation plan" issued and distributed by the defendant corporation should be deemed as denying that the plaintiff clan is the founder of the defendant school foundation, thereby infringing on the plaintiff clan's reputation, reputation, credit, and other personality rights, and the order that the defendant corporation not to state such information is an unlawful act that affected the decision by misunderstanding the legal principles on the right of honor as the personality rights and the establishment requirements of the claim for prohibition based thereon. The part of the grounds of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)