The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. An act of using the outcomes of considerable effort and investment made by a competitor for his/her own business without permission in violation of business ethics or the order of fair competition, thereby obtaining unjust profits by taking advantage of his/her efforts and investment and infringing on the competitor's interests worth legal protection, constitutes an act of unfair competition, which constitutes a tort under the Civil Act;

(See Supreme Court Order 208Ma1541 Decided August 25, 2010, etc.). 2. The lower court, based on the following circumstances, acknowledged that the Defendant’s image reproduction, etc. infringed the Plaintiff’s business interests worth protecting the Plaintiff, thereby partly citing the Plaintiff’s claim for damages.

The plaintiff and the defendant sold the same or similar clothing products using the Internet site, and they are competing with each other by seeking the same sales strategy emphasizing that the products are suitable for the image of the overseas famous persons.

B. In order to produce the image to be used at his/her own website, the Plaintiff searched and selected a foreign master’s photograph, employed a model with similar physical characteristics, and affixed his/her photograph, affixed his/her intent, and re-printed it into a foreign master’s photograph.

At least one year, the Defendant reproduced or copied the image produced by the Plaintiff, and repeated these acts while continuing the instant case.

C. It is a separate issue for the Plaintiff to claim damages on the ground that the Plaintiff’s business interest was infringed in relation to the Defendant’s relationship with an overseas well-known person by using the face pictures without permission of an overseas well-known person, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages is a separate issue.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court.