A. The Defendant operates the instant singing room (hereinafter referred to as “instant singing room”) with a mutual name, “Fcoin,” on the second and second floors E and E.

The entrance of the instant singing room and several places within the singing room are prohibited from drinking or smoking in all areas of the store, open to the public the face of a person smoking or drinking, and there is a sign stating that a person who does not consent to it leaves.

Specific examples are as follows:

B. On August 27, 2018, the Plaintiffs used the instant singing room on or around 15:37, and drank in a room.

C. Around that time, the Defendant posted the CCTV photographs taken by the Plaintiffs along with the phrase “Mise ” on the top of the vending machine in the instant singing room.

By November 1, 2018, the defendant posted a photograph of the plaintiffs by no later than November 1, 2018, but does not post it any more at present.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiffs asserted that Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings is to remove the plaintiffs' photographs posted in the instant singing book, and that the plaintiffs should pay 200,000 won per day until they complete the fulfillment of the duty of removal of photographs.

Judgment

However, prior to the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case to the defendant, around November 2018, the photograph of the plaintiffs was removed, and the photograph of the plaintiffs is no longer posted. Thus, this part of the plaintiffs' claim is without merit.

The term "honorary" in Article 764 of the Civil Act refers to an objective evaluation received from a world, such as a person's character, virtue, honor, and credit, and such reputation shall constitute a tort.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da17851, Oct. 24, 1997).