beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of each film or statement and pleading as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, and 10, the defendant posted the plaintiff's photograph on the gallon bulletin board on December 16, 2017 without the plaintiff's consent. The defendant posted the plaintiff's photograph without the plaintiff's consent. The defendant puts the plaintiff's photograph on the same day, without the plaintiff's interview, and then puts the plaintiff's photograph on the same day as to what between the plaintiff and the plaintiff", the plaintiff's answer letter was sent from the plaintiff that "the plaintiff sought dial-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-the-job prior to the plaintiff's salone and the plaintiff want
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, without the plaintiff's consent, posted the plaintiff's portrait and damaged the plaintiff's reputation by posting false facts, has a duty to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 18, 2017 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from December 18, 2017 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment.
In regard to this, the Defendant, without permission, posted a photograph containing the Defendant’s personal hobby on the Internet. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s bulletin board, on which the Defendant puts a photograph or puts a book, is a sign board, etc., which opened a large number of humiliations and a sign board, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff made a photograph of the Defendant, and even if so, the Plaintiff made a photograph of the Defendant.
Even if the nature of a bulletin board or bulletin board is the same as above, it cannot be viewed as a ground to justify the defendant's illegal act, so the defendant's argument is without merit.
2. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed.