손해배상(지)
1. The Defendants each of the KRW 100,000 to the Plaintiff and each of them, Defendant B, C, and E, respectively, from August 19, 2017 to Defendant D, H, and H.
1. On August 8, 2013, the Plaintiff registered each copyright with the Korea Copyright Commission on the Plaintiff’s copyrighted works, each of which was published by writing the novel of about 18 in the 1997, the Plaintiff’s writing of “L”.
The remaining Defendants, other than Defendant I, posted part of the Plaintiff’s novels on the Internet site without the Plaintiff’s permission (Defendant I around July 26, 2012) following the Plaintiff’s respective copyright registration (Defendant I) so that many and unspecified persons can download them.
As to this, the Defendants were subject to the suspension of indictment in the investigative agency.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the whole documentary evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Defendants in charge of liability for damages are recognized as having opened each of the novels in this case, which the Plaintiff had copyright, on the Internet site without the Plaintiff’s permission.
Therefore, the defendants shall be deemed to have infringed on the plaintiff's copyright (right of reproduction, etc.) regarding each of the novels in this case, and the defendants shall be liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff.
Defendant I asserts that, although Defendant I had specifically known the fact of damage on May 12, 2014 that the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the above Defendant, Defendant I filed the instant lawsuit on May 25, 2017, the claim for damages against the said Defendant was completed and expired.
According to the case, Gap 3-15, the prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office located in the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office recognized the suspension of indictment against defendant I on June 19, 2014, and around that time, notified the plaintiff who was the complainant of the fact of disposition.
In addition, due to the nature of the copyright infringement of this case, it is difficult for the victim to accurately specify the perpetrator at the time of the complaint, and the complaint is filed only with the ID or IP used for the act of infringement. Thus, the plaintiff is defendant I.