1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 7,000,000 for each Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from February 25, 2017 to July 21, 2017; and (c).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the representative director of Seodaemun-gu and office equipment manufacturing company E (hereinafter “E”), and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is the company that publishes online newspaper “F” as it runs Internet media business, entertainment, entertainment, entertainment, and entertainment business. Defendant C and D are reporters belonging to Defendant Company.

B. On November 16, 2016, Defendant C and D asked the Plaintiff, who had worked in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s residence in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul, to “E is suspected to take over the German J on behalf of I who supported H’s children,” and “whether I would not receive contractual benefits from I in return for the said children,” and the Plaintiff did not comply with this.

In the process, the employee of the defendant company taken photographs containing the plaintiff's face.

C. At around 8:40 on November 17, 2016, Defendant C and D asked the Plaintiff, who had worked in the company near the Plaintiff’s residence, again asked questions to the same effect, and the Plaintiff did not respond thereto, and during that process, Defendant C and D taken photographs containing the Plaintiff’s face.

On November 21, 2016, around 05:00 and around 05:40, the Defendant Company published the same article as indicated in attached Tables 1 and 2, including photographs as indicated in attached Tables 4, 5, and 6, in the title “K” and the title “L” on “F,” which is the Internet media of the Defendant Company. On the same day, at around 11:51, the Defendant Company published the same article as indicated in attached Tables 3, including photographs as indicated in attached Tables 7, 8, and 9.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not agree to the disclosure of his portraits at the time of each of the instant pictures, and thus, the Defendant Company’s publication of the Plaintiffs’ portraits in each of the instant reports is the Plaintiff’s portrait rights and interests.