205 Gohap67570 Damages (as stated)

Co., Ltd. 000

00

April 13, 2006

May 4, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20,000,000 won with 5% per annum from July 8, 2004 to May 4, 2006, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be divided into twenty parts, and 19 of them shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant 500,000,000 won and the year from July 8, 2004 to the date of this judgment

5%, 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment shall be paid.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 29, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to publish a photographic book of "000" (hereinafter the instant photographic book) of the title "00, which contains the body pictures of Korean male cultural artists taken by the Defendant between the Defendant and the Defendant, in Japan (hereinafter the instant publication contract) under the brokerage of OO (representativeO) in Korea’s popular culture-related Republic of Korea.

나. 이 사건 사진집은 2004. 7. 2. 출판되었는데, ○○○ 사진 14장, ○○○ 사진 14장, OOO 사진 12장, OOO 사진 11장, ㅇㅇㅇ 사진 4장 등으로 구성되어 있다 .

C. However, upon the publication of the instant photographbook, the portrait rights of the Roman model was infringed.

The defendant created the following news report materials on July 8, 2004 and distributed them to the newspaper reporters (hereinafter referred to as the report materials of this case).

1. The motive for publishing the photograph collection (the contents omitted);

2. After receiving a publication proposal from the Plaintiff, the Defendant began to obtain the Plaintiff’s consent on the portrait use from the photograph model to be published in the work book. While a considerable number of parties agreed to use the photograph, the Defendant entered into the instant publication contract with the Plaintiff on June 29. At the time of concluding the contract, the Defendant made a verbal agreement with the Plaintiff on the publication of the photograph book at the end of seven months, and requested the Plaintiff to use only a limited number of pictures to be used to the Plaintiff. Furthermore, prior to the publication of the contract, the Defendant inserted the phrase that the Plaintiff and the Defendant would make a final decision upon the publication of the photograph, book title, and radar log to be contained in the work book.

3. The Defendant had failed to obtain final permission for the original use of a part of a photograph model, but intended to obtain permission for the original use prior to publication of the work site, and was planned to delete pictures during the final review process with respect to the models that did not permit the original use.

4. However, during the business trip of Russia from June 28 to July 2, 199, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the Plaintiff was compelled to publish the instant photograph collection without the final consultation process on the content of the work site. The Defendant sent a public door to Russia, namely, the Defendant demanded each ○○○○○○ to send a public door and indicate his intention to suspend the printing and selling of the work site. The Defendant omitted.

5. At present, the Plaintiff immediately suspended all public relations activities, including the broadcast of the photographbook of this case, newspapers, etc., which the Plaintiff planned to do, and is in progress with the Defendant for a smooth resolution of problems. The omission is a matter of consultation with the Defendant.

D. After that, the article 2.2 and 4. A summary of the content of the instant news report was mainly reported in various sports sites in Korea and Japan, as indicated in the attached newspaper article.

[Ground of recognition] A2-1, 2, A4-1 through 3, A7-2 through 6, A8, A11, and 2. Party’s arguments

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not withhold the request for restriction or final consultation on the quantity of the photo at the time of the publication contract of this case, and that even though the defendant agreed to obtain permission for the use of the portrait rights to the above photo prior to the publication date, the plaintiff did not perform his duty under the above agreement and caused the infringement of the portrait rights of the above photograph model, the plaintiff published the above photograph in violation of the publication contract of this case, and published the photograph above the agreed quantity, and without the last consultation with the defendant, published the photograph of this case more than the publication date of the contract of this case, which caused the infringement of the above portrait rights." Since the publication of the photograph of this case without the last consultation with the defendant, it caused the infringement of the above portrait rights" by providing the reporters with false news report materials to the effect that the false contents were published and damaged the plaintiff's reputation and credit, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff KRW 500

As to this, the defendant asserts that all of the report materials of this case are true, and even if it is not true for household affairs, the defendant needs to clarify the defendant's position in the situation where the issue of infringement of portrait rights of the photographic model is public opinion, so the illegality of distributing the report materials of this case is excluded.

3. Determination

A. The reason for publishing the photographbook of this case

A2-2, A5, A10- 3 through 11, B, 3, 4, 10, B- 18- 1, 24- 24, B-14, 26, and 28 of each of the above statements, B-1-1, 00, and 00 testimony of ○○○○○○, the following facts may be acknowledged, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings, and the testimony of Party A14, B-26, and 28 is not trust. (1) On May 204, the Plaintiff visited the Plaintiff in the order of 7th of the first written permission for publication, 200 to put the Plaintiff’s photograph on the front of the written permission for publication, and then, to put the Plaintiff’s photograph on the front of the written permission for publication. (2) On the other hand, the Defendant was selected by the Defendant to put the Plaintiff’s photograph on the front of the written permission for publication, and then, to put the Plaintiff’s photograph on the front of the publication.

(4) Subsequent to that, the Defendant consulted with the Plaintiff on the contents of the instant publication contract through ○○○○, and delivered it to the Plaintiff on June 26, 2004, and the Plaintiff signed the instant publication contract by affixing his seal on June 29, 2004. (5) The instant publication contract bears all responsibility for the Defendant’s permission to use the portrait rights (Article 2(2)), and the Plaintiff determined the selection of photographs to be inserted on the instant photograph book (Article 2(3) and the date of publication (Article 7(2)), and written on July 26, 2004 with the Plaintiff’s signature and seal on the instant publication contract, and written on June 29, 204 (Article 8(2)) and written on July 2, 2004 with the Defendant’s signature and seal on the publication model (Article 8(2)) and written on July 2, 2004, the Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff’s license to use the entire photograph as above.

such notification was not received.

B. Whether the content of the news report material of this case generally harms the reputation of a specific person is based on the objective content of the news report material of this case, and under the premise that the general public comes into contact with the news report material, the overall impression of the contents of the report material of this case should be determined based on the overall appearance of the news report material to the general public, comprehensively taking into account the overall flow of the contents of the report material, the ordinary meaning of words used, the connection method of phrases, and the historical background and situation of the distribution of the news report material. In addition, whether the contents of the report material of this case are true or not shall be determined based on whether the material part is consistent with the truth, and even if not the verbal or minor part is not a fact, if the material part of the report material of this case is consistent with the truth. Thus, in determining whether the Defendant’s reputation was damaged by pointing out false facts, the determination of whether the contents of the report material of this case were false or not based on the overall appearance of the news report material of this case, the date of publication, the final reservation of pictures, the method of the expression, the overall purport of the article, etc.

1) As seen earlier, as seen in the publishing process of the instant photograph book, the Defendant already selected a photograph to be posted on the photograph book prior to the conclusion of the instant publication contract, and did not limit the quantity of each model-based photograph or reserved the possibility of limiting the number of pictures. However, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to use the instant news report materials only limited amount for the purchase of the pictures to be used by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff stated the false facts that it might be mistaken for being mistaken for the Plaintiff to have posted the pictures more than the amount set by the Defendant without consultation with the Defendant.

② On the date of publication, as seen earlier, the Defendant set the publishing date at the time of the instant publication contract in the order of July 2004, and agreed with the Plaintiff to make a verbal agreement different from the above written agreement with respect to the publishing date. However, the publication date was made at the end of July in the instant news report materials (Paragraph 2). The Defendant stated “(Paragraph 3) to obtain a license to use the portrait for the well-known person who did not obtain a certain portrait use prior to the publication date,” thereby indicating the false fact that the Plaintiff unilaterally publishes the instant photograph on July 2, 200, which might be mistaken for the Defendant to be mistaken for obtaining a license to use the portrait, due to the Defendant’s unilaterally publication of the instant news report on July 2, 200, which was earlier than the end of July, the agreed date.

In this regard, the defendant proposed ○○○ to publish the report of this case to the plaintiff on July 2004, and it reflected all the requirements of the defendant when delivering the publication contract of this case in Japanese language to the defendant. Thus, the defendant was aware that the defendant who does not have the ability to read Japanese language only OO's speech, and the publication date was in the middle of July 2004, and even if the agreed publication date of family affairs was in the top of July, 2004, the plaintiff unilaterally published the report of this case without consultation on specific publication date and did not have sufficient time for the defendant to obtain permission to use the portrait rights. Thus, although the part on the publication date of the report of this case was deemed true, the defendant clearly stated the publication date of this case in the order of July 7, 204, as alleged above, the defendant did not have any other important reasons for determining the publication date of this case as to the publication date of this case's news report of this case as to the publication date of this case's news report of this case's news report of this case.

③ Finally, regarding the final reservation of agreement on the selection of a photograph, the following facts are stated in the publication contract of this case: (a) the selection of the photograph to be inserted in the photograph book of this case under the Defendant’s agreement, a studio, a rash, a rash, etc.; (b) however, such content is merely a confirmation of a natural content under the publication contract with the Defendant regarding the composition of the photograph book; and (c) as seen in the publishing process of the photograph book of this case, the photograph to be inserted in the actual photograph book of this case was selected and confirmed under the Defendant’s agreement, but only the final consultation on the specific composition and editing of the photograph book of this case was left behind through the confirmation of the paper book of this case; and (d) the Defendant unilaterally stated in the contract that the final consultation on the photograph of this case would be recorded in the publication book of this case; and (e) the Defendant did not explicitly indicate the fact that the Plaintiff could not make the final publication of the photograph of this case without the Defendant’s agreement.

(B) Whether defamation is defamation

Thus, the defendant, as above, provided the reporters with false content to the effect that the responsibility for infringement of portrait rights due to publication of the photo collection of this case is entirely violated of the plaintiff's agreement, thereby impairing the plaintiff's honor and credit.

C. Whether the illegality is denied

Even in the case of an act damaging another person's reputation, if the purpose of the act is solely for the public interest, it is not illegal if the actor has a reasonable ground to believe that it is true, even if there is no proof of truth, and according to the above facts of recognition, the distribution of the report materials of this case by the defendant is not only a false statement of facts, but also it cannot be deemed to be for the public interest or for the public interest, and its illegality is not dismissed.

D. Scope of liability for damages

As above, the defendant shall be liable for damages caused by tort against the plaintiff by pointing out false facts through the news report of this case and damaging the plaintiff's reputation and credit. The amount of damages shall be determined at KRW 20,00,000,000, in full view of all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, including the plaintiff, the social status of the defendant, the reason why the photograph book of this case was published, the purpose and purport of the news report of this case, the degree of false portions among the contents, the original intent of the news report of this case, whether or not the defendant was responsible for infringement of portrait rights, the situation after the news report of this case was distributed, and the plaintiff is proceeding against the defendant separately from the lawsuit of this case.

Therefore, from July 8, 2004, which was an illegal act, the defendant's 20,000 won to the plaintiff and the defendant's defense as to the scope of the duty of performance is reasonable.

4. There is a duty to pay 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed as there is no ground.

Judge landscaping column of judge

Judges Gosung-sung

Judges Park Jae-young

A person shall be appointed.