(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.04 2014나4681

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.04 2014나4681

손해배상(기)

Text

1. According to the Plaintiff’s amendment of the purport of the claim in the trial, the judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From February 13, 2013 to April 3, 2013, the Plaintiff was an artist who was active as a actors and advertising model from around 1996, and contributed to the Rama of “D” set forth in the title “D”, which was aired by the ESS Broadcasting Station from February 13, 2013 to April 3, 2013, and the Defendant and the selector jointly operate the Internet shopping mallF (F; hereinafter “instant shopping mall”).

B. From March 25, 2013 to the same year, the Defendant and the selector

4. Until October, 10, without the Plaintiff’s consent, posted on the bulletin board of the shopping mall of this case the pictures that the Plaintiff had the face-to-face (hereinafter “the pictures of this case”) and sold similar designs using the name “A/E E Ethm”. When searching the keyboard, such as “A Ethm”, on the portal site for the same period, the portal site was searched, then the total of 2,644 times NAN recorded the number of visitors to the shopping mall of this case by using the keyboard search advertisement where the name of the shopping mall of this case is exposed, and sold the 334 of which among them the 334 “A Ethm”.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 and 2, each video, Gap’s evidence 3-1 through 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant and the designated parties posted the Plaintiff’s photograph and name in the shopping mall of this case without the Plaintiff’s permission to publicize the goods sold by the Defendant. This constitutes a tort that infringes the Plaintiff’s right of publicity

As a result, the plaintiff suffered property damage from his/her own name and the use of his/her portraits (advertisement model fees) and suffered mental suffering due to the use of his/her portraits and name without permission at a place in which he/she does not want.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.28 2014나22948

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.28 2014나22900

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.28 2014나22962

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.27 2014나4735

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.23 2015나5278