Daegu

Attorney Kim Jong-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gangnam-gu Seoul

Law Firm Cratization, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Sung-hoon, Counsel for the defendant

3. Ten percent of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, while the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

C. It shall pay 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment.

A. The Plaintiff is an artist from around 2006 to the stage of the clothing company model, who has contributed to the drama and film, and announced the need for a crime. The Defendant is an intention to operate the △△△△ Family Department (hereinafter “instant hospital”).

B. On June 201, the Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s consent, posted an advertisement in the same manner as the Plaintiff’s attached Form, on the website of the instant hospital, online newspaper company, etc., with the phrase “Bruco creation” or “Bruco creation of a well-known item,” but deleted the Plaintiff’s title “Wruchi” from each advertisement phrase, which was subject to the Plaintiff’s claim from the Plaintiff on November 2, 201.

C. The Plaintiff, after having been in the entertainment community, was known as a bad artist by coaches. On April 201, the Plaintiff emphasized that her nose was not in fact subject to a pulse sexual intercourse by contributing to the television arts program, and her nose was not in fact subject to a pulse surgery. In addition, some media reported about this to the effect that her nose was not subject to a sexual intercourse.

D. On November 2, 2011, an entertainment planning company, to which the Plaintiff belongs, demanded the Defendant to suspend advertising and, at the same time, posted the Plaintiff’s advertisement using the Plaintiff’s towing name on the home page, online newspapers, etc. on a maternity outdoor and online newspaper, etc., thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s right of name and reputation, and impairing the Plaintiff’s reputation so that the Plaintiff could be mistaken for being exposed to the same way as he/she had undergone a comal surgery, and then distributed the news report materials stating that “a demand for discontinuance of advertising on the side of the pertinent hospital as well as a plan to take legal action,

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff;

1) The Plaintiff received cruel treatment by inserting the land’s name in the form of a model and making up the land’s name in the name of "Stopco". The Defendant inserted the Plaintiff’s name in the advertisement phrase and advertised the Plaintiff’s model pictures that may confuse the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff due to the similar shape of the Plaintiff and the mustache, thereby making it possible for the Plaintiff to misunderstand the completion of the gold as being the advertising model of the instant hospital after undergoing the co-mar surgery at the instant hospital. This infringed the Plaintiff’s right to name, portrait rights, and infringing the Plaintiff’s celeblty right including the Plaintiff’s right to name, portrait rights, and infringing the Plaintiff’s celebrity and reputation as the Plaintiff’s artist. 2) The Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages for the advertisement fee of KRW 50 million, KRW 30 million, KRW 8000,000,000, and delay damages that the Plaintiff may receive when concluding an Internet advertising contract for six months.

B. The right of publicity asserted by the Defendant Plaintiff cannot be acknowledged without legal basis, and even if recognized, the Plaintiff’s name, etc. is an artist who wishes to be widely known to the general public, and thus cannot be deemed as a human artist to the extent that the Plaintiff asserts. The Defendant’s expression in the advertisement phrase as the Plaintiff’s 's 's 's 's 's 's ' '' was' is regarded as a good to the extent that the Plaintiff’s calcco want to have even through a sexual surgery, and thus, the Plaintiff’s calcco did not harm or interfere with the Plaintiff’s calcco’s evaluation, reputation, etc. as an artist. Rather, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress.

3. Determination

A. Establishment of tort liability

1) Generally, the right of publicity, which explains that the name, portrait, etc. is commercially used, controlled, or exclusively controlled by the right of publicity, does not exist any positive law of the Republic of Korea or any established customary law stipulating the subject, duration, remedy, etc. of the right of publicity. However, there is no such positive law or established customary law, but it is publicly known that the existence of such right has the effect of promoting business activities in cases where the name, portrait, etc. of a famous person widely known in society is used for business of an enterprise as well as the name, portrait, etc. of a deceased person widely known in the society in support of its own reputation, social evaluation, and nomination, etc. In such cases, the right of publicity can be understood as independent economic benefits or values arising from reputation, social evaluation, designation, etc. acquired by the relevant famous person, and such right of publicity belongs to the relevant famous person, and the customer's right of publicity has exclusive economic benefits or values that have such economic benefits and values.

2) The Plaintiff accumulated the reputation and designated reputation of the Plaintiff as a bad artist for a several years using the name of "Mai Mai Doi". The Plaintiff’s advertisement of which the instant hospital, which is a sexually off-type, without the Plaintiff’s permission, uses the Plaintiff’s reputation and designated level for the business activities of the instant hospital, thus infringing the Plaintiff’s right of publicity, in particular, the Plaintiff’s name (for example), regardless of whether the Plaintiff’s reputation and designated level have been harmed, and the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the act of infringement. However, even if the Plaintiff used a model that is highly likely to confuse with the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff infringed the Plaintiff’s right of portrait, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s reputation was damaged by the Plaintiff’s work of the instant hospital cannot be viewed as the Plaintiff’s expression of “continuation.”

B. 1) Property damage caused by infringement of the right of publicity is equivalent to the amount of compensation that can be paid when the right of publicity approves the use of his/her right.

B) According to the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2, around August 2001, the Plaintiff entered into an exclusive model agreement with Non-Party Korea Co., Ltd., 140 million won per year, and 120 million won in 6 months with Non-Party ○○ Co., Ltd., but it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s right to use was concluded for the purpose of using a well-known person’s name as a well-known person’s name, not a portrait right, and it is difficult to calculate the economic value of only the Plaintiff’s right to use the name, because it is difficult to find out the case where the Plaintiff’s right to use was concluded for the purpose of using a well-known person’s name as a well as a well-known person’s name and a well-known person’s name and a well-known person’s reputation to the extent that the Plaintiff would have an effect on promoting business activities. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s circumstance where it appears that there was no mental harm to the Plaintiff’s use of the Plaintiff’s own name, etc.

B) Furthermore, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the instant pleadings, such as the Plaintiff’s designation degree as the Plaintiff’s artist, the period during which the Defendant committed the infringement, and the degree of damage to the Plaintiff caused by the infringement, etc., as revealed in the instant pleadings, the Defendant’s payment of consolation money

4. Conclusion

A. From March 27, 2012, the day following the delivery date of a copy of complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff as a tort against the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 5% per annum under the Civil Act until October 9, 2012, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the day of full payment, to the day of the delivery of a copy of complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.

B. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.