Whether unfair infringement of portrait rights constitutes a tort (affirmative), and whether the decision of the amount of consolation money for emotional distress suffered by a tort is a discretionary matter of the fact-finding court (affirmative)

Article 10 of the Constitution, Articles 750 and 751 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 2003Da8503 Decided May 11, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16280 Decided October 13, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1897)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Jeong & Yang LLC, Attorneys Yu Jae-in et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Napos Co., Ltd. (Seoul General Law Firm, Attorney Hong Hong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Na26823 Decided April 28, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은, 그 채택 증거에 의하여 피고와 사이에 씨에프(CF) 영상 광고물(이하 ‘이 사건 영상 광고물’이라 한다) 제작계약을 체결한 씨에프(CF) 제작자 소외 1이 가수, 모델 겸 탤런트인 원고를 광고모델로 섭외하였으나 그들 사이에 이 사건 영상 광고물의 사용범위에 관하여 이견이 생긴 사실, 소외 1이 피고에게 영상 광고물 사용범위에 관하여 원고 측과 상의할 것을 통보하였고, 원고의 매니저 소외 2와 피고의 담당자 소외 3 과장이 이에 관하여 협의하였으나 결렬된 사실 등 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 다음, 피고는 원고와 소외 1 사이에 이 사건 영상 광고물의 사용범위에 관하여 협의가 이루어지지 않은 상태에서 원고의 동의 없이 이 사건 영상 광고물을 피고의 홈페이지 및 ‘결혼박람회’ 인터넷 사이트, 공중파 방송, 케이블 텔레비전에 무단 게재 내지 방영되게 함으로써 원고의 초상권을 부당하게 침해하였으므로, 피고는 원고에게 불법행위자로서의 책임이 있다고 판단하였다.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding facts beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or misunderstanding of legal principles as to liability for damages

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Any person has a right not to be taken, taken, taken, or publicized without permission, or used for profit, with respect to his/her face and other physical characteristics recognizable as a specific person by social norms. Such portrait rights are constitutional rights guaranteed by the first sentence of Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16280, Oct. 13, 2006). Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that unjust infringement constitutes tort and causes mental suffering to the victim, barring any special circumstances, barring any special circumstance. Meanwhile, the fact-finding court may determine the amount of solatium for mental suffering caused by tort at its discretion in consideration of various circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da8503, May 11, 2006, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined the amount of consolation money as 15,000,000 won by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the purpose of manufacturing and producing the instant video advertisements, the amount of production, the period of broadcasting or printing, and the Plaintiff’s status, in view of the fact that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the Defendant’s infringement of

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below is just in deciding the amount of consolation money as above, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of consolation money.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)