Restaurant that continued to use actor Park Seo Jun's photos without permission... 5 million won damages ordered (South Korea)

A court has ruled that a restaurant owner should pay damages after using actor Park Seo Jun's (37) photo and name in advertising for his restaurant without permission.
According to the Korean legal community on the 3rd, the Seoul Eastern District Court decided on May 29th that Park Seo Jun had committed a crime involving the soy sauce and brothel.
In a lawsuit filed against Mr. A, the owner of a restaurant in Seoul, for damages of 60 million won (approximately 6.3 million yen), the court ruled in partial favor of the plaintiff and ordered Mr. A to pay 5 million won (approximately 520,000 yen) in compensation.
The court ruled, "Even if the portrait and name of a celebrity are made public, they cannot be used for the business of others without the person's permission," and "However, the size of Defendant A's restaurant is relatively large.
"We took into consideration all circumstances, including the minor details, the business owner, and the form and duration of the infringement of portrait rights," he explained. As neither side appealed, the first-instance ruling was finalized.
In the 2018 tvNTV series "What's Wrong with Secretary Kim?", Park Seo Jun is seen eating ganjang gejang in a restaurant.
The restaurant was operated by Defendant A, and one year after the TV series aired, Defendant A created a banner with the promotional slogan "Park Seo Jun's favorite delicious gejang restaurant" and other advertising slogans.
The photos were posted in the restaurant for about six years until September of last year. During this period, Defendant A also ran search ads on portal sites. After that, Park Seo Jun claimed that Defendant A used the photos without her consent and violated her portrait rights.
Park Seo Jun's side stated, "We have requested the company to suspend publication of the ad several times since 2019, but the ad has not been used in search ads or on the sidelines of portal sites.
Even after the banner was taken down, it was put up again and then, without responding to requests to have it taken down, they continued their malicious behavior, which led to this lawsuit."
"The secondary victimization has been malicious mockery and slander against the legitimate verdict,"
We have confirmed that this is the case, and we plan to take action without leniency or settlement against any acts that violate the portrait rights and personality rights of our actors."