A. The Plaintiffs are merchants selling clothes at the first basement level in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul, and the Defendant is a person who has an office in the G merchant and works as a director at the G merchant meeting with an office in the G merchant.

B. On May 17, 2016 and May 22, 2016, the Defendant taken pictures of the Plaintiff A’s face and body disputing the Plaintiff A with his/her cell phone camera, without permission, even though he/she did not demand or consent to take photographs as a matter of the use of the official room in front of his/her store.

C. In addition, on June 9, 2016, the Defendant taken the faces and body of the Plaintiffs using a cell phone camera as a screen image without permission, even though the Plaintiffs did not request or consent to the photographing in the process of dispute with the Plaintiff as a matter of using a factory room in front of the store, and posted it to H where the store owners act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to Gap evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 8-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the right to pursue a peaceful private life, portrait right, and business obstruction part (1) Plaintiffs’ assertion, and that the Defendant inspected the official shop from May 2, 2016 to June 9, 2016, the Plaintiffs asserted that they infringed upon the right to pursue private life, portrait right, and business obstruction by photographing the figures of the Plaintiffs without permission and posting them.

(2) (A) Any person has a right not to have his/her face and other physical characteristics recognizable as a specific person by social norms described or published without permission, and not to have such portraits used for profit. Such portraits are constitutionally guaranteed by Article 10(1) of the Constitution.

Therefore, unfair infringement of portrait rights constitutes a tort.

Supreme Court on June 27, 2013