1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are three middle school teachers located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

At the time of the instant case, the Plaintiff was a teacher in charge of the first year, and the Defendant was a teacher in charge of the third year.

B. The Defendant called to the first-year teacher D who was in charge of the above event on July 12, 2017, when a problem arose in relation to the student’s participation in the third-year school event that he/she was in charge. On July 12, 2017, the Defendant called to the first-year teacher D, who was in charge of the above event, and the difference of opinion was found to the first-year school office because it was narrow.

At the time, there was the Plaintiff, D, E, and F in the first grade school room.

C. The Plaintiff, who entered the first-year school room, was repeated into the school room as a somewhat higher class of class to the Defendant, and the Defendant, without responding to this, went to the next page of D and dialogue relating to the problem of D and students.

The plaintiff continued to sound in the school room to the defendant, and the defendant began to record his smartphones in his own smartphones. D.

The plaintiff found that the defendant's recording was made, deducted the defendant's smartphone, and did not return the smartphone by the following day despite the defendant's request to return the smartphone.

In relation to this, the plaintiff was prosecuted as a crime of causing property damage, and was convicted of a fine of 300,000 won on August 14, 2018 (Seoul Western District Court 2017 High Court 1644), and is still in the course of the appeal trial (Seoul Western District Court 2018No179).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 29, 30, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s voice right by recording the Plaintiff’s voice in secret.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the said tort (i.e., medical expenses of KRW 5,024,644,00 for consolation money of KRW 2,00,00).

B. It is unclear whether Defendant’s voice right is recognized as a right to specify and recognize the voice right.