1. A decision of the court of first instance against the above defendant E in excess of the money ordered to be paid below.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, A, and B are married, the Plaintiff C, and D’s children.

The plaintiffs were all new members of the G church, and the defendant F was the father of the G church.

B. From December 2012, Plaintiff A raised an issue regarding the suspicion of embezzlement of a member of the G church with respect to the obligations of the G church.

다. 이에 피고 F은 2013. 3.경 타인의 사생활 조사를 업으로 하는 피고 E에게 원고 A이 H교회(피고 F은 ‘H’가 이단으로서 교회를 분열케 하고, 담임목사를 부도덕한 사람으로 취급하여 교회에서 �아내기도 한다고 주장한다)의 신도인지 알아봐달라고 의뢰하고, 그 대가를 지급하였다. 라.

Defendant E, upon the above request, taken four times from April 17, 2013 to February 2, 201 of the same month the appearance of the Plaintiff E to work or move, his vehicle, etc., and reported it to Defendant F.

At the time, Defendant E’s report was accompanied by the above-mentioned photographs taken by Defendant F. They included not only the form of Plaintiff A, but also the form that Plaintiff B, C, and D moved with, or left from, Plaintiff A.

E. On March 11, 2015, the Defendants received a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 from the Incheon District Court Branch Decision 2015 High Court Branch Decision 2015 High Court Decision 201Da1355 on the grounds that they either investigated or abetted the privacy of Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, 1-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the establishment of the liability for damages, Defendant E did not conduct or take photographs of Plaintiff A without legitimate authority, such as the Plaintiffs’ consent, and did not directly intend to detect their privacy, even if the photographs of Plaintiff B, C, and D did not directly intend to detect their privacy.