1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: ① Defendant C’s act of inserting the Plaintiff’s photograph on the instant account along with the instant notice (hereinafter “instant photographing act”) is dismissed in light of the legal principles of the relevant precedents; ② Even if liability for damages arising from the Defendant C’s tort is recognized, Defendant B Organizing Committee (hereinafter “Defendant Organizing Committee”) is not in a relationship with the actual direction and supervision of Defendant C; and ③ the current Defendant Organizing Committee is an organization newly created after the Organizing Committee was dissolved on September 16, 2018, and is not legally liable for the tort that occurred at the time of the first Organizing Committee.

The defendants' above 2 and 3 arguments are not different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the fact finding and judgment in the first instance court on each of the above arguments are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of this court concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for an additional determination as to the instant argument as set forth in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to whether illegality of the infringement of portrait rights is dismissed

A. The relevant legal principles have the right not to be taken, taken, published or used for profit without permission by anyone on his 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. Such unjust infringement constitutes tort.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16280, Oct. 13, 2006). Such infringement was conducted at a public place.

or (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16280, Oct. 13, 2006). The video or photograph posted by a third party on his/her website.