1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Korean Broadcasting System, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3

Article 72(1) of the Broadcasting Act and Article 58(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even in cases where an external production of a broadcast program is enforced against a broadcasting business operator, and accordingly a broadcasting business operator requests the production of a broadcast program to an external producer, the broadcasting right of the broadcast program belongs to the broadcasting business operator and the final editing right of the broadcast program supplied to the broadcasting business operator under a contract for production concluded with the external producer, and the final editing right of the broadcast program is reserved against the broadcasting business operator. Under the following circumstances, if the broadcasting business operator broadcasts without a separate screen manipulation that makes it difficult to identify the photographer and make it difficult to identify the photographer, the broadcasting business operator cannot be exempted from the liability of tort infringing upon the portrait right of the photographer in collaboration with the external producer. The liability of the broadcasting business operator is based on the production of the broadcast program as it is, not on the relationship between the external producer and the contractor, but on the relationship between the external producer and the user and the employee under the Civil Act.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined as follows: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s status as the respective parties to the instant broadcast program and the Defendant’s 24 City Broadcasting System’s broadcast “24 City Hospital”; (b) the production process of the Plaintiff’s 1,00g - Salnesia” (hereinafter “instant program”); (c) the content of the external production agreement entered into between the Defendant Korean Broadcasting System and the Defendant’s Joint Defendant 2, an external producer, on the basis of the broadcast content of the instant program; and (d) acknowledged the specific content of the Plaintiff 1 and 2; and (e) based on its recognition of the facts, the Plaintiff 3 was liable for damages to the Plaintiff’s producer or user of the instant program without the Plaintiff 2’s consent, on the premise that the Plaintiff 2 was not liable for damages to the Plaintiff’s producer or user of the instant program at the time of production of the program, on the premise that “The Plaintiff 2 and the Plaintiff 2 were not liable for damages due to the production of the program.”

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as to the infringement of portrait rights as alleged in the grounds of appeal by Defendant 3, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the distinction of contract and employment from the contractor's liability as to the contractor's act, or the misconception of facts as to the violation of the rules of evidence. The grounds of appeal by Defendant Korea Broadcasting System is based on the premise that the liability of Defendant Korea Broadcasting System for damages as to the infringement of portrait rights is established only on the broadcast program produced by an external producer'

2. Defendant Korean Broadcasting System and Defendant 2’s ground of appeal No. 2

As seen earlier, the lower court recognized Defendant 2’s liability for damages against the said Defendants on the ground that Defendant 2 was negligent in failing to perform his/her duty of care necessary for the infringement of portrait rights, such as the consent of the photographer, in relation to the broadcast of the instant program, as an employee of the Defendant Korea Broadcasting System, on the ground that he/she was negligent in failing to perform his/her duty of care necessary for the infringement of portrait rights, such as the consent of the photographer, and such negligence liability recognized by the lower court cannot be deemed to be in violation of the purport of Article 72(1) of the Broadcasting Act, which provides for the program of external production of an external production broadcast program, on the premise that the means to avoid the infringement of portrait rights due to deletion of the page that may be at issue based on the editing right or the screen manipulation that makes it difficult to identify

Therefore, the judgment of the court below does not contain any errors in violation of the rules of evidence as to the existence of negligence, which is an element of tort, and in misapprehension of the legal principles as to the burden of proof, or in violation of the reasoning or inconsistent reasoning.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants against Plaintiff 1 and 2 are dismissed, and the appeals by Defendant Korea Broadcasting System and Plaintiff 2 against Plaintiff 3 are dismissed as it is obvious that the said Plaintiff was wholly failed in the original judgment and there is no interest in the appeal. Therefore, the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)