[손해배상(기)] 확정[각공2012상,472]
In a case where Eul, who worked as the head of counseling office for the sexual surgery operated by a doctor Gap, puts up pictures and posts before and after the surgery on the Internet car page without the consent of Byung, for the purpose of promoting the hospital, the case holding that Eul and Eul, the employer Gap, are liable for damages against Byung
In a case where Eul, who worked as the head of counseling office for the purpose of counseling Eul's sexual surgery operated by Eul, puts up a photograph and a notice on the Internet camera, without the consent of Byung who had been performed an operation at the above hospital for the purpose of publicity, Eul puts up his photograph and a notice on the Internet camera without the consent of Byung, the case holding that Eul, without the consent of Byung, posted a letter on the Internet camera with the possibility of infringing on the social value or evaluation of the sexual appearance of Byung's sexual appearance, and posted it on the Internet camera to the extent that it can be recognizable as Byung under social norms, thereby infringing Byung's honor and portrait rights, and caused considerable mental suffering, Eul was obligated to go off with money, and Eul is also liable to compensate Eul for damages inflicted on Byung with respect to Eul's sexual appearance as Eul's employer.
Articles 750, 751, and 756 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff (Attorney Park Young-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant 1 and one other (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Ansan-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
January 30, 2012
1. The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 15,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from September 15, 2009 to February 27, 2012, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.
3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;
4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.
The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 40,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from September 15, 2009 to the date of the instant judgment, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Defendant 1 served as the head of the hospital of Defendant 1 (hereinafter “instant hospital”) in Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and Defendant 2 served as the head of the counseling office of the instant hospital.
B. On July 29, 2009, the Plaintiff was performed a surgery to improve the coconsect at the instant hospital as a female working as a dental sanitarian of a dental hospital.
다. 피고 2는 이 사건 병원의 상담실장으로서 병원 홍보로 자신의 능력을 인정받을 목적으로 원고의 동의 없이 2009. 9. 5. 인터넷 네이버 카페 (인터넷 카페 1 생략)의 ‘내얼굴 수술전후’라는 게시판에 ‘ (필명 생략)’이라는 필명으로 “코수술한달째...완전 달라진 내얼굴!!!”이라는 제목 아래 자신의 이야기인 것처럼 “올해 서른인 여자입니다. ... 결혼을 앞두고 성형외과 상담을 갔습니다. ... 30년 콤플렉스를 위해 과감히 결정을 했죠... 처음 일주일은 괴물같았습니다. 그런데 3주가 지난 지금 너무 이쁩니다. ... 정말 코수술하나로 동남아필도 사라지고 튀어나온 입도 들어가 보이고 입술모양도 이뻐졌습니다. 빈티나고 싼티나던 얼굴이 이렇게 고급스럽고 ... 세련되질수가요...ㅋㅋㅋㅋ….”는 내용을 게재하면서 눈부분을 모자이크 처리한 상태로 원고의 성형 전후 사진을 게시하고, 그 후 2009. 9. 22. (인터넷 카페 2 생략) 카페에 같은 필명으로 “코수술한달째...정면사진 측면사진 올려보아용”이라는 제목 아래 “정면사진하고 측면사진 좀 올려달라고 해서...부끄럽게 또 올립니다.”라는 내용을 게재하면서 눈부분을 모자이크 처리한 상태로 원고의 성형 전후 전면, 측면 사진을 게시하였다.
D. On February 19, 2010, the Plaintiff came to know of this fact through the line of this language and photograph on the Internet camera, and Defendant 2 deleted the above bulletin and photograph on the same day pursuant to the Plaintiff’s claim.
E. Defendant 2 was indicted for summary facts constituting the crime of posting the above writing and photographs, and was issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 on March 18, 201 as a crime of violation of the Act on Promotion of the Utilization of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation) as of March 18, 2011.
[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-4 evidence
2. Determination
(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;
According to the above facts, Defendant 2, without the Plaintiff’s consent, posted a letter on the part of the Plaintiff’s sexual appearance, which could infringe on the Plaintiff’s social value or evaluation as to his sexual appearance, and posted the Plaintiff’s face pictures on the Internet camera to the extent that they can be identified as the Plaintiff in light of social norms, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s honor and portrait rights. In light of the empirical rule, it is obvious that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental pain, Defendant 2 has a duty to do so in money, and Defendant 1 is liable for compensation with Defendant 2, as the employer of Defendant 2, who suffered damage to the Plaintiff in connection with the execution of his duties.
Defendant 1 asserted that Defendant 2, regardless of the execution of the duties of the instant hospital, arbitrarily misrepresented the Plaintiff and posted the above writing and photographs, and thus, the employer is not liable. However, as shown in the above facts, Defendant 2 posted the above writing and photographs for the purpose of promoting the hospital as the head of counseling office of the instant hospital, and thus, Defendant 1’s assertion is not acceptable.
Defendant 1 argued to the effect that Defendant 2 was not liable because he was aware that Defendant 2 posted the above writing and photographs and urged Defendant 2 to delete and prevent recurrence, and that Defendant 2 was dismissed. However, Defendant 1’s above assertion is insufficient to recognize that Defendant 1 had paid considerable attention to the appointment and supervision of Defendant 2 solely on the grounds alleged by Defendant 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
(b) Scope of damages;
As to the scope of the damages that the Defendants are liable for, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case, including the following: (a) the snow part of the Plaintiff’s photograph taken by Defendant 2 as a mother knife; (b) the content posted by Defendant 2 did not correspond to the Plaintiff; (c) Defendant 2 was subject to the Plaintiff’s claim and deleted immediately and immediately; (d) on the other hand, the period of posting on the Internet camera is not shorter than five months before and after the end of five months; (b) the knife is a photograph to the extent that the Plaintiff is known; (c) the contents of the posted article were posted for the purpose of promotion of the hospital; (d) the contents of the posted article contain the Plaintiff’s external appearance; and (e) the Plaintiff’s content was 20 women at the time, and (e) the amount of consolation money that the Defendants are liable for compensation to the Plaintiff due to the infringement of portrait rights is considered to be KRW 15 million.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Jong-soo