2015Na62431 Compensation (e.g., damage)

1. KimA

2.B

o]CC

Law Firm Seosung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Jin-young

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015 Ghana138744 Decided October 7, 2015

June 3, 2016

July 1, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

Defendant (Appointed Party) the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointee’s government exchange, the Dom, Kim Jong-dong, the Skick-dong, Park Jong-hee, the Han-do.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as "the plaintiffs") 2,500,000 won for each of the designated parties and the designated parties; and

As to this, 5% per annum from December 17, 2014 to the sentencing date of this case, and full payment from the following day:

By the day, 20% interest per annum shall be paid.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

The dismissal is dismissed.

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

The defendant has filed a lawsuit against the defendant without standing to be the defendant against the defendant.

As a defense that is unlawful, the defendant's standing in a performance lawsuit is the plaintiff's claim.

In its own sense, and the judgment is absorbed into the judgment of the propriety of the claim, so the person liable for payment.

A person asserted as the defendant is a legitimate defendant (Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451 delivered on November 28, 1995).

(See) The defendant is a party asserted from the plaintiff as a party to the lawsuit, and thus the defendant's merits are the defendant's above-mentioned party.

The previous defense is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Facts of recognition

1) Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dog Dogg Dog Dog

An organization consisting of persons engaged in club activities (hereinafter referred to as “instant club”); the Plaintiffs;

The members of the instant club are members, and the defendant is the former president.

2) On November 24, 2013, the election of the president of the instant club was held on November 24, 2013, and Plaintiff KimA and the Defendant.

The defendant was elected as the chairperson among the candidates.

3) On January 12, 2014, the Defendant: (a) held the instant club set committee; (b) held the said set committee; and (c) held the said set committee.

Resolution to dismiss the plaintiffs at the instant club (hereinafter referred to as the "Resolution to dismiss the plaintiffs").

On January 13, 2014, the Defendant was expelled from the instant club to the Plaintiffs on January 13, 2014

Then, the instant expulsion between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant was made by sending the message.

There was a dispute over the validity of the resolution.

4) On January 29, 2014, the Plaintiffs are the Defendant of the instant club, and the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gaz.

5437 No. 5437 filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of expulsion of this case

The instant club is divided into the instant club by establishing the Plaintiffs’ private organization, and the instant club is divided.

Members of a club intentionally interferes with or intentionally interferes with various meetings, such as extraordinary general meetings, monthly meetings, etc.

See the assertion that the resolution of expulsion of this case is valid by 'the act interfering with the election campaign'

However, the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiffs, and the instant club was Seoul High Court (2014).

54160) The appeal was filed in 54160.

5) Meanwhile, the Defendant around October 5, 2014, which was after the closing of argument in the instant lawsuit No. 2014Gahap54377, around October 5, 2014

The face, body, etc. of the plaintiffs standing or sitting in a club shall be taken on several occasions.

The Plaintiff, who was taken on December 17, 2014, was found to have been recorded in the Seoul High Court’s appellate brief, together with the Plaintiff’s appellate brief.

by submitting accompanying photographs of their face and body parts to the Plaintiffs

Evidence as to interference with the meetings and campaigns of the instant club or interference with the operation of the instant club;

Notwithstanding the provisions of the plaintiffs, in addition, the instant club was used on March 5, 2015.

In addition, I would like to submit the photographs of other plaintiffs as evidence together with their own preparatory documents.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 2-6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

1) The occurrence of liability for damages caused by infringement of portrait rights

The right of portrait refers to Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea (human dignity and value, the right to pursue happiness), Article 17 (Personality)

As a general personal right derived from smuggling and liberty, the primary photograph and preparation of which are not the consent of the principal.

In this context, or upon the consent of the person concerned, a portrait has been published, but the scope of the consent has been given.

outside, if the initial fear is associated with a defamation expression or has been commercially abused;

It can be said that the right of portrait has been infringed.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant will face and body of the plaintiffs against the plaintiffs' will.

The photography of the plaintiffs and the criticism and tolerance of the plaintiffs in order to win in the proceeding trial.

This constitutes a tort that infringes on the plaintiffs' portrait rights, which constitutes a tort.

The plaintiffs have a duty to compensate for mental damage caused by the plaintiffs.

2) Determination as to the Defendant’s allegation of illegality

As to this, the defendant had the club of this case do the plaintiffs' photographs.

b) the submission of evidence to prove the assertion in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution, merely that such submission has been made;

It argues to the effect that the illegality of an act is not recognized. However, it argues that portraits and privacy is confidential.

The unjust infringement of freedom constitutes a tort. The infringement is a place in which it is made public.

solely on the grounds that it was conducted for the purpose of collecting evidence of civil action or

Since it is not reasonable (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da16280 Delivered on October 13, 2006). Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not reasonable.

The reasons for acceptance are as follows.

3) Scope of liability for damages

There is no special reason for a person whose portrait right, personality right, etc. is infringed against his/her own will.

It is reasonable to see that one's mental suffering entails one's own mental suffering, and on the other hand, the mental suffering suffered by tort.

With respect to the amount of consolation money, the fact-finding court shall consider various circumstances and thereby belong to its own authority.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da31628 Decided June 27, 2013)

See Decision) Photographss, such as the social status and relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the plaintiffs' face, etc. are submitted

(2) The court below held that the instant club was submitted to the court during the lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the expulsion resolution of this case

Considering the overall circumstances shown in the pleading, such as the fact that it was posted on the bulletin board of the club

At the time, the amount of damages that the defendant is liable to compensate for to the plaintiffs is determined as KRW 300,000 each.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered.

As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed for lack of justifiable grounds.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Sung-soo

Mobilization of Judges

Judges Cho Jae-dae

1) The above Supreme Court ruling provides that the victims of traffic accidents who filed a lawsuit claiming damages against an insurance company’s employees shall be determined.

The act of photographing the daily life of the victims for the purpose of collecting evidentiary materials on the Do shall be the portrait right and the secrecy and freedom of privacy.

the court held that it constitutes a tort that infringes upon the law.