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

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have served as a teacher in Cmiddle Schools (the Plaintiff has served more than 10 years as a teacher than the Defendant). The Plaintiff is a first-year student, and the Defendant is a third-year student.

B. At around 17:30 on July 12, 2017, the Defendant visited the first grade school room in order to spread the D’s students due to the student problem, and the Plaintiff, who was next to the Plaintiff, was in dialogue with D’s students, began to record the Plaintiff’s voice by means of a Handphone.

C. The Plaintiff discovered the recording of the Defendant and immediately deducted the Defendant’s handphone, and thereby, was sentenced to a fine in the Seoul Western District Court as a crime of property damage, and is currently serving in the same court.

2. The judgment of this Court

(a) Anyone has a right not to record, reproduce, record, broadcast, reproduce, or distribute his/her voice without permission against his/her will, and such voice rights belong to personal rights constitutionally guaranteed (Article 10, first sentence of the Constitution). Therefore, an act of recording and reproducing the voice of the other party without consent constitutes a tort, barring special circumstances.

However, in a case where there is a legitimate purpose or interest to be achieved through the recording, and it can be evaluated that the recording is an act which can be accepted in light of social ethics or social norms by considerable means within the necessary scope of the recording, the recordinger's secret recording shall be excluded from the illegality of the act that does not violate social rules.

B. In full view of the evidence and the purport of the oral argument presented, the following can be acknowledged: (1) the Plaintiff committed an act of causing harm to the Plaintiff, which the Defendant had committed an act of causing harm to the Plaintiff; (2) the recorded place is a school room in which many teachers were in the first grade school teachers; and (3) most teachers talk with the Plaintiff; (4) the recorded part is a very part of the Plaintiff’s talk; and (3) there is no content that may impair the Plaintiff’s reputation, except that the Plaintiff’s voice, such as “Irre, Irre, Irre, Irre, Irre the governance,” and (3) the Defendant did not use the recording or recording of the instant case other than the litigation related to the instant case.

The Defendant’s act of recording was conducted at a public place where a prison room is open to the public, and several teachers exist, and the motive of recording was also the Plaintiff’s act of cutting the Plaintiff into D’s dialogue with D. In light of the content and quantity of recording, it is difficult to evaluate the Defendant’s act of recording as an act which is not remarkably acceptable in light of social ethics or social norms. Accordingly, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a tort because its illegality is eliminated.

C. Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim seeking damages on the premise that the Defendant committed a tort.

* The ruling of small-sum case may choose not to state the reasons in accordance with Article 11-2(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act.