A. Whether there is a benefit in a lawsuit seeking the alteration or deletion of the matters indicated in the family union or the family union of a clan (negative)

B. The meaning of defamation under Article 764 of the Civil Act and the meaning of defamation merely asserts that an act of defamation has been infringed upon, and whether such act constitutes defamation (negative)

A. A claim seeking a change or deletion of the matters listed in the clan's clan's husband or clan's husband is not related to a claim on property or any relation of rights to social status, and thus, it is not allowed as there is no benefit in the protection of rights as to the filing of the claim.

B. Defamation as referred to in Article 764 of the Civil Act refers to an act of impairing a person’s social assessment, and a mere subjective assertion that an reputation appraisal was infringed does not constitute defamation.

A. Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit]

A. Supreme Court Decision 75Da296 delivered on July 8, 1975 (Gong1975, 8586) B. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1450 delivered on June 14, 198 (Gong1988, 1020)

Plaintiff 1 and 12 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The documents of the racing, the documents of the court, the documents of the race, and three others.

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na28292 delivered on November 22, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

1. A claim for a change or deletion of the matters indicated in the family register or the family register of a clan does not relate to the assertion of any property or any relation to the status, and thus, it is not permitted as there is no benefit in the protection of rights under the law to bring a lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da296 delivered on July 8, 1975).

Therefore, the decision of the court below that dismissed this part of the plaintiffs' lawsuit in the same purport is justified.

2. The argument argues that the compilation of the instant detailed report by Defendant Young-si's Korean literature and Telecommunication (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Dae-Jol") was based on the implied compilation contract with the plaintiffs, and that the instant claim is seeking full performance of the obligations under the contract. However, there is no evidence to conclude that the compilation of the instant detailed report by the defendant Dae-Jol was based on the compilation contract with the plaintiffs. In addition, according to the records, the compilation of the instant detailed report by the defendant Dae-Jol was conducted as part of its own business for the purpose of integrating the previous detailed report and compiling the new paper sources that were not listed in the previous detailed report, and it was considered that it was based on the contract with the plaintiffs and all members including the plaintiffs. This is the same even if the defendant Tae-Jol collected the prescribed amount from the members to raise funds required for its compilation.

Therefore, there is no reason to argue in the opposite position.

On the second ground for appeal

1. Examining the records, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below, and there is no error in the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing, such as the theory of litigation.

2. Defamation under Article 764 of the Civil Act refers to the act of impairing the people's social reputation, and it does not constitute defamation merely by claiming that the reputation has been infringed upon, and if the facts were recognized by the court below, it would be difficult to say that the reputation of the plaintiffs was damaged by the defendants' act of compiling the news of this case.

3. If so, even if there are some errors in the procedures and contents in the compilation of the instant news report by Defendant Dae-sung, it cannot be said that the instruction of the court below to deny tort liability on the grounds that it cannot be viewed as an intentional or negligent act by the Defendants. However, the result of the judgment rejecting the Plaintiff’s claim on this part is justified. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Young-young (Presiding Justice)