beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,00,000 and annual interest thereon from September 6, 2015 to April 15, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. On September 5, 2015, the Plaintiff received non-freshing visual therapy (hereinafter “instant surgery”) from the Defendant’s “C sexual surgery” operated by the Defendant. The Defendant, at the time, taken the place of the surgery as a screen image (hereinafter “instant screen”) to verify the result of the surgery according to the operation plan.
B. On the other hand, on September 6, 2015, the Defendant posted the instant video images on the D channel that he/she operated without the Plaintiff’s consent.
C. On February 1, 2018, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the instant videos were posted while searching D sites in order to obtain information on the instant procedures.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the appraisal result of appraiser E, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Defendant’s act of posting the motion picture of this case on the D channel without the Plaintiff’s consent by many persons having access to the motion picture of this case constitutes a tort that infringes upon the Plaintiff’s portrait right, privacy secret and freedom, and honor, and it is obvious in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff suffered considerable mental suffering. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate for mental suffering suffered by the Plaintiff.
B. As to the scope of damages that the Defendant is liable for, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the health team and the evidence revealed earlier, namely, the Plaintiff appears to have suffered considerable mental impulse by posting a video image taken by the 20th early female female sexual surgery site D, and the Defendant posted the instant video image on the D channel for the purpose of promoting his/her sexual surgery with the aim of promoting his/her sexual surgery, and the period of posting is at least two years. However, the instant video is not the Plaintiff’s face, but rather the Plaintiff’s portrait, and the degree of infringement of the Plaintiff’s right, such as the Plaintiff’s portrait, is serious.