2015Da225967 Damages

PapPPPPP Co.

Law Firm Hyi, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-min et al.

Royon Co., Ltd.

Law Firm LLC (LLC) LLC

Lee & Lee LLC et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014450219 Decided June 11, 2015

February 13, 2020

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 without permission for one’s own business in contravention of business ethics or the order of fair competition, thereby obtaining unjust profits by taking advantage of the competitor’s efforts and investment and infringing on competitor’s legal interests worth protecting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2008Ma1541, Aug. 25, 2010).

2. The lower court partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for damages, recognizing that the Defendant’s image reproduction, etc. infringed the Plaintiff’s business interests worth protecting the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are competing with each other by seeking the same sales strategies emphasizing that the products are suitable for the image of a foreign famous person while selling the same or similar clothing products using the Internet site.

B. In order to produce the image to be used at one’s own website, the Plaintiff searched and selected a foreign master’s photograph, employed a model with similar physical characteristics, affixed his/her photograph, affixed the photograph, and combine it into a foreign master’s photograph. At least one year, the Defendant reproduced or copied the image produced by the Plaintiff, and repeated this act 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 the overseas well-known person by using the face pictures without permission of an overseas well-known person, and that the Plaintiff’s business interest was infringed.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence without exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of tort, such as interests with legally protected value, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. The Defendant asserted that the part of the Plaintiff’s infringement on a third party’s rights did not constitute the interests with legally protected value,

4. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Jo Hee-de

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Min You-sook