1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part concerning the claim for deletion of Internet seat maps shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3.

1. The plaintiff's assertion is a small and medium pet that consists of CC 14 years of age, E's descendants, E's descendants, and there is no f among E's 18 years of age, K and F (F, 150 - 1621).

Nevertheless, under the premise that three children, such as G, H, I, and their descendants, are in F, the Defendant, a central head of the family council in charge of C C, C, C, C, C, C, C, and C, the number of descendants of which is 1,000, is entered in C, H, I, and C, C, C, and C, the number of descendants of which is 1,000, and is currently being distributed.

This led to the occurrence of the appearance of descendants of G, H, and I who are not members of the Plaintiff’s clan, and the Plaintiff’s identity, which is a group of descendants who jointly set up E, was no longer maintained. In addition, it is probable that these members may have an impact on the Plaintiff’s property status by attending the Plaintiff’s general meeting and exercising their voting rights, and their honor was damaged as it undermines the Plaintiff’s social evaluation.

Therefore, the Defendant, as an appropriate measure for restoring honor, has a duty to delete Ga, H, I, and their descendants of Part D 18-year-old Internet Roster F, and not to distribute the Dong newsletter published by the said G, H, I, and their descendants to the clans Association prior to towing the Dong newsletter.

2. A claim in a lawsuit to determine whether the part of the claim for deletion against the Internet church of this case is lawful is limited to specific rights or legal relations. A claim to seek alteration or deletion of the matters listed in the family union of the clan or the family union does not relate to any claim on the property or any legal relationship in relation to the status of the family union of the same clan, and thus, it cannot be permitted as there is no benefit in the protection of rights as to the property or the status of the family union of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da756, Oct. 27, 199