1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 16, 201 to December 18, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the Parties:

On October 2011, the Plaintiff received from the father and the mother of the Defendant, an operation for heat treatment of the infection of the womb or the race of the Defendant, and received the outpatient treatment.

B. The Plaintiff plans to broadcast articles contributed by the Defendant with respect to the disease and surgery method from the Defendant during the outpatient treatment, and received inquiries as to whether the Plaintiff could respond to the Plaintiff’s treatment and interview. The Plaintiff responded to this proposal.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff’s interview was aired in Dr. D with the appearance that the Plaintiff was receiving treatment while putting his/her clothes up, the real name of which was open to the public.

From October 16, 201 to August 23, 2013, the Defendant posted the article to link the article to the Busanbubu’s website and the hospital website and the tables, car page, and tubes operated by the Defendant, etc., so that other people can see the contents of the article.

2. The person shall have the right not to have his/her face and other physical characteristics recognizable as a specific person in light of social norms taken, recorded, or published without permission, and shall not be used for profit;

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff only permitted the filming of a interview with the form of his/her medical examination and treatment in C, and did not agree to allow the Defendant to link it to his/her own hospital website, etc. so that it can be seen by the Defendant’s hospital website, etc. or to use it for publicity purposes of the Defendant’s own hospital or hospital.

Therefore, the defendant's act of linking the article part of C where the plaintiff's portrait appeared without the plaintiff's consent to his own website, etc. so that other persons can see it on the plaintiff's website, etc. constitutes a tort against the plaintiff as it infringes the plaintiff's portrait right.

2.3.