The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 200,000 and its interest on October 9, 2014.

In addition, on October 4, 2014, the Defendant posted the video recorded as above on “E”, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s voice and privacy.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, without the consent of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s parents, did not have any dispute between the parties as to whether to recognize the compensation for damages caused by the taking of a photograph, and thus, the Defendant infringed the portrait rights and voice rights as the right not to be taken by the Plaintiff.

However, according to the evidence evidence No. 1, considering the following facts: (a) the video content taken by the Defendant was a interview format in which the Plaintiff voluntarily responded to the Defendant’s question; (b) it is difficult to view that the contents of the conversation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant include the Plaintiff’s secret; and (c) there is no evidence that the Defendant posted the video directly by the Defendant as seen below; and (d) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s right to privacy was infringed upon by the Plaintiff’s act of photographing, the Plaintiff’

B. We examine whether the Defendant is liable for damages due to posting, and the fact that the video recorded by the Defendant was posted on October 9, 2014 was not disputed between the parties, but there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant posted it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

C. According to the scope of compensation for damages, the Defendant infringed upon the Plaintiff’s portrait right and voice right by photographing without consent, and thus, the Defendant should compensate for mental damage suffered by the Plaintiff.

The amount of mental damage is the process of shooting recognized by the images of the evidence No. 1, the contents of conversation between the plaintiff and the defendant taken.