1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On July 10, 2009, the Defendant: (a) drafted a false master list as if all of the members were recruited, such as entering a person who did not actually nor did not exist in the senior master list in the senior master list.

Therefore, this case’s lawsuit seeking confirmation of its truth-finding.

2. A lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of an ex officio judgment is not allowed as to whether the document was prepared by the person in whose name the document was prepared, and whether the document solely proves the right or legal relationship was prepared by the person in whose name the document was prepared, and whether the document was actually actually prepared by the person in whose name the document was prepared (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4710, Feb. 14, 1989). In addition, in a lawsuit for confirmation of the authenticity of the deed, the term “written document proving the legal relationship” refers only to a document that can prove the existence of a certain present legal relationship directly from the content of the document.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53714, Dec. 14, 2001). With respect to this case, the health team and the Plaintiff asserted that the content of the education team does not coincide with objective truth, not dispute whether the education team was prepared by the Defendant.

In addition, the order of guidance is merely a document prepared by the defendant who is the owner in order to report the current status of the guidance to the guidance members, and it does not directly prove that the guidance has been established by the agreement of all the guidance members, including the plaintiff, etc.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.