음성권 침해로 인한 불법행위 책임의 판단 기준 -대상판결:대법원 2025. 10. 16. 선고 2025다204730 판결-

Although the Korean Civil Code does not explicitly stipulate the right to voice, recent lower court decisions have recognized it as an independent right derived from the general right of personality. Given the increasing number of disputes arising from recording conversations without consent or broadcasting and distributing recorded voices, the judgment under review is significant because it establishes the criteria for determining tort liability in such cases. If the right to voice is not an inviolable right, then infringements that occur to a degree ordinarily acceptable in social life should be considered within the limit of tolerance. To make such a determination, one must first examine the scope of personality interests affected, the means and purpose of the infringement, whether the victim consented, and whether any additional legal interests were infringed and to what extent. If the act potentially constitutes an unlawful infringement of the right to voice, the final determination of unlawfulness should be made by weighing the nature and necessity of the interest pursued against the scope and severity of the harm suffered by the other party. In this case, the court first examined whether the alleged infringement was within the limit of tolerance and held that the harm to the plaintiff was tolerable, thereby denying tort liability. Furthermore, the court did not proceed to a detailed balancing of interests, reasoning that when an infringement of personality rights falls within the limit of tolerance, strict balancing based on proportionality would be unnecessary or could distort the determination of unlawfulness. This step-by-step approach adopted by the court in assessing tort liability is appropriate and represents a progressive development compared to prior precedents concerning infringements of personality rights.