All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2012Da31628 Decided June 27, 2013 【Violation of Privacy, etc.】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Whether an unjust infringement of privacy or portrait rights - which constitutes a tort - can be justified because it occurred at a public place, or performed in order to collect evidence for a civil suit (negative) [2] Elements to negate illegality of publicizing facts related to privacy, factors to consider in determining the illegality of an act infringing privacy, and the party to carry the burden of proof negating unlawfulness [3] In a case where Gap corporation, etc. infringed upon Eul and Byung’s privacy by vividly describing the meeting between the families of the soon-to-be-married Eul and Byung, as well as the scenes of the two dating, and published a report with Eul’s photograph taken without permission, the case holding that Gap, etc. infringed uopn Eul, et al.’s privacy and portrait rights, and are obliged to pay damages for the emotional distress they caused to Eul, et al. as joint tortfeasors |
|
