Supreme Court: Victim Filming Assault Scene... Not a Violation of Portrait Rights

[Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that a victim who was assaulted over an inter-floor noise dispute and recorded the incident on video cannot be considered to have violated portrait rights.

On the 12th, the Supreme Court's Third Division (Presiding Justice Kim Jaehyung) announced that it upheld the lower court's ruling, which dismissed the claim for damages filed by resident A of an apartment in Jeonju, Jeollabuk-do, against three residents including the women's association president B.

In August 2018, A got into an argument with B, who had come to discuss the inter-floor noise issue, and realized that B was recording a video with her mobile phone. A then struck the phone, causing it to fall to the floor, and assaulted B while cursing, resulting in injuries requiring two weeks of medical treatment. A was fined 500,000 won by summary order for this assault.

Prior to this assault incident, in February of the same year, A had attempted to post a banner within the apartment complex's management office without reporting it, but was stopped by other residents. At that time, B, who was nearby, recorded the scene on video, and the footage was shared with the residents' representative chairman, the management office manager, and the building representatives.

Regarding this, A filed a lawsuit claiming 9 million won in damages against B and others, alleging "infringement of portrait rights."

The first and second trials ruled against the plaintiff. The second trial court pointed out, "The defendant needed to record the video to collect and preserve evidence related to criminal procedures, as there was a dispute and emotions were heated, and the plaintiff might have used abusive language or violence." It stated that the video recording was necessary and urgent for evidence preservation in criminal proceedings, and the method was reasonable, thus not violating social norms.

Furthermore, the court ruled, "The banner posting was to inform others of A's claims and opinions," and "This can be seen as implicit consent to photography or publication." It also noted, "The video was transmitted in a limited manner, within a scope that A should accept," dismissing all of A's claims.

The Supreme Court also agreed with this judgment. The bench stated, "The lower court did not err in its legal interpretation regarding justifications for the illegality of portrait rights infringement, and there is no mistake affecting the judgment."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.