2013 joint 37857 (Joint) Confirmation of the existence of the obligation due to copyright

2013 joint 48222(Joint) Confirmation of the existence of obligations due to copyright

2013 Gohap70595 (Counterclaim) Confirmation of the existence of any obligation due to copyright

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) the respective amount of money corresponding to the amount recognized in the separate sheet, 5% per annum from September 26, 2013 to February 21, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s remainder of the main claim except for the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) corporation, Noglux Co., Ltd., Mirz financial information service corporation, world company, Nurz financial information service corporation, Bowaz Central Education Co., Ltd., Korea Sweve Co., Ltd., Korea Sweve Co., Ltd., Korea Sweveco Co., Ltd., Ltd., Total Musz information service corporation, Musz information service corporation, World Musz information service corporation, World Sweveco Co., Ltd., Ltd., World Sweveco Co., Ltd., Ltd., Korea Sweveco Co., Ltd., Ltd., Muszco Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Muszz information service corporation, World Co., Ltd., Ltd., Inc., Ltd., and the other plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd. and the other counter defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd.

4. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), respectively, by adding the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

Counterclaim: The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall pay to the defendant 20% interest per annum at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the counterclaim of this case to the day of complete payment.

A. Copyright of the instant program

1) The software in the attached list of software (hereinafter “instant program”) was developed and owned by Nonparty B, and was provided to the user free of charge until June 7.

2) B transferred the author’s property right to the instant program to Nonparty C, and C transferred the author’s property right to the instant program to the Defendant on April 1, 2012.

3) The Defendant registered the instant software to the Korea Copyright Commission with D himself as the author.

B. Feeizing and running of the instant program

1) On February 5, 2012, the instant program was operated from the BV to the 7.0 BV on February 6, 2012, and was provided free of charge only when used for non-commercial/personal use, and in other cases, the program was charged for purchasing “business license”.

2) On August 23, 2012, the instant program was set up as Bandandon on February 15, 2013, as Bandon on August 15, 2013, as Bandon on August 1, 2013, as Bandon on June 27, 2013, and as Bandon on January 13, 2014.

1) On February 5, 2012, if an employer who used the instant program free of charge the 6.7 burner, implements the instant program after the commencement of the instant program 7.0ber prior to the commencement of the instant program, the establishment of the instant program will proceed upon the user’s selection of the user. After the completion of the installation, “after the completion of the installation,” the user will use the instant program only for the terms and conditions consent and for non-commercial/personal use” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant license”). If the user selects the confirmer after choosing the box prior to the box of the instant license agreement, the instant program will be available for use.

2) On February 5, 2012, when the users of the instant program set up the instant program 7.0 servers, the installation of the instant program will proceed with the implementation of the installation of the instant program. After the completion of the installation, the instant program will be used only for the consent of terms and conditions and for the individual use/individual use. It would be possible to use the instant program in a situation where the user selects the confirmation server after choosing the first box of the phrase “to use only for the consent of terms and conditions and for the non-commercial use/individual use.”

3) The original text of the “Agreement on License Terms and Conditions” of the instant program was changed from 7.5 Band 8.0 Band B to 7.0 Band L.L. “I will use only for the terms and conditions and for non-business/private use/private use/private use.” It is irrelevant to this content, 8.1 Band L.V., “I will use it for the terms and conditions, and for non-business/private use/private use” in 8.1 Band L.V., however, I will use it at non-business places and for non-business/private use/private use, respectively.

4) The main contents of the terms and conditions of the instant program’s use (hereinafter “instant terms and conditions”) offered to the consent window after July 0 of the instant program are as follows.

1.1.2 On January 3, 198, only the users who have properly purchased this product shall be entitled to use the product within the scope of use and the period of use specified in the certificate included in the product. However, in the case of individuals not using it for business purposes, it may be used without purchasing. The use by a computer located in the business site shall be deemed to have been used for business purposes. On January 5, 198, the users who have acquired the legitimate permission of use may download or reproduce this product for the legitimate use of the product. In addition, the reproduction of this product may be made for a white or storage purpose.

D. Collection, etc. of the instant program, etc.

1) From July 0, 199 to the Defendant’s server, the instant program allows the user to transmit the user’s computer information to the Defendant’s server when implementing the instant program immediately after the user consented to “the consent of the License Terms and Conditions.”

2) The Defendant sent the following content-certified mail to the companies and organizations to which the collected IP royalties have been allocated:

3. We will grant the right to use free of charge to individuals for non-business purposes from 2012, 2, 1. to employers for non-business purposes (company, individual, or other entity) but bear licensing costs.

I review the fee-charging policy. It was confirmed that you will use the program of this case without due authorization.4. We will request you to use the program of this case without due authorization. We will send you will send you a reasonable license certificate to us within 10 days of the delivery of official document if you have legitimate right to use.5. If you will not present a legitimate license certificate within the above period, you will decide you will infringe on the copyright, and we will only take civil and criminal legal measures.6. We will recognize you will purchase the quantity of us used by you within 15 days of receipt of the official document, and will not raise any civil and criminal issues as to the use prior to the date of purchase.

E. The price policy of the instant program set by the Defendant’s pricing policy for the instant program is as follows.

Plus Roster (other enterprises excluding individual entrepreneurs, simplified entrepreneurs, one human enterprise, and non-profit organizations, shall use Plus Roster)

(f)a similar functional program.

1) Among the programs with the main functions of the instant program, fee-charging program has Capt Expres (1 user license US$ 19.95 US$), Capt Wz Support (1 user license US$ 39.95 US$), Snagit (1 user price US$ 37.95 US$), Screbenbening ( US$ 20 US$), Quic Scret Macenser ( US$ 25 US$), Ultran Capital (US 42 US$ 42 US$68), Coolcrecening (US$ 299 US$), Capbreging (295 US$ 295). Free of charge, graphic program, graphic is established.

2) On the other hand, there is a free program with the function to capture the video to Free Scen Vides, AMT Auto-Movie-Trumbnatile, VH13, E.M. M. Gameure 501.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 24 through 26, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 27, 32, 33 and 34 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the recognition of liability for damages caused by individual users’ copyright infringement

A. Whether the reproduction right was infringed upon upon due to the installation of the instant program

1) The parties' assertion

A) Defendant’s assertion

Reproduction in a normative sense protected under the Copyright Act should be distinguished from the act of storage in a technical sense as a simple computer hard disc, and only the act of reproduction prescribed under the Copyright Act has been completed when the program of this case reaches the practicable point so that it can be actually used. Before the completion of the reproduction of the program of this case, the user agreed to use the program of this case only for non-business/personal use. The user used the program of this case in violation of the above authorization of use, thereby infringing the Defendant’s right of reproduction.

B) Plaintiffs’ assertion

The establishment of the instant program is without prejudice until the completion of the construction as ordered by the Plaintiff in the course of the course of the instant program. As such, the authorization to use the instant program and the establishment of the instant program are irrelevant to the authorization to use the license agreement. Rather, in the instant program, the reproduction was made under the Defendant’s expression of intent to grant reproduction, the copyright holder.

(ii) the board;

A) Article 2 subparag. 22 of the Copyright Act provides that "the term "the reproduction" means the temporary or permanent fixing or remaking on a tangible object by means of printing, photographing, copying, sound or visual recording, or any other means." Since the establishment of the instant program is self-fixed on the hard disc, it is reasonable to deem that the fixed reproduction of the instant program has been completed as long as the installation of the instant program has been completed. On the other hand, in the course of running the instant program, the reproduction of the instant program was done by the user and the user was selected as "the opening of the instant program as a new server." In the course of running the instant program, the reproduction of the instant program was done with the permission of the copyright holder, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant's permission of the copyright holder of the instant reproduction was made by the window in which the instant program was installed, and thus, it cannot be said that the reproduction of the instant program was infringed upon the Defendant's reproduction right of the instant program.

B) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the infringement of the right of reproduction is recognized on the ground of the violation of the agreement by the “Catho Terms and Conditions” of the instant program. However, the Defendant’s argument that the permission for the reproduction of the instant program was made by a window that notifies the business. It is irrelevant to the scope of the permission for the use of the instant program by the “Catho Terms and Conditions”, and the reproduction of the instant program was completed at the same time, and therefore, the decision on the infringement of the right of reproduction should be made according to the circumstances after the reproduction was completed.

C) In addition, the Defendant asserts that the concept of reproduction under the Copyright Act is normatively deemed as having been completed even after the fixed work was completed in a tangible object, but the reproduction is defined as a "fixed work of a tangible object" and does not include the concept of reproduction. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit, since the Copyright Act defines the reproduction as a "fixed work of a tangible object" and does not include the practical use of a copyrighted work.

B. The parties' assertion on the infringement of the right of reproduction due to temporary reproduction in the implementation process of the instant program

A) Defendant’s assertion

If individual users loaded and used the instant program stored in a hard disc through a computer, the entire or essential part of the program is maintained for a certain period of time in which the program is continuously stored in the RAM, and the computer program being implemented is temporarily fixed to tangible objects by other means as defined in Article 2 subparagraph 22 of the Copyright Act. Therefore, the Defendant’s right to reproduction of the instant program is infringed.

B) Plaintiffs’ assertion

(1) 이미 전체가 하드디스크에 저장되어 있는 컴퓨터 프로그램의 경우, 프로그램의 실행에 필요한 명령어로 변환된 후 중앙처리장치에 입력됨으로써 실행되고, 각각의 명령어는 메모리에 일시적으로 저장된 후 실행 이후에 즉시 삭제되는 바, 메모리에 일시적으로 저장되었다가 사라졌다가 하는 것들은 그 프로그램의 극히 일부분에 불과하고, 프로그램 실행명령어가 메모리에 존재하는 시간 역시 매우 찰나의 시간에 불과하기 떄문에 프로그램의 이용과정에서 이루어지는 프로그램 일부의 메모리에의 저장과정을 저작물의 복제라고 볼 수 없다.

(2) Storage in the MAM does not constitute a reproduction of tangible objects as a fixed object. RoM is limited to a considerably small temporary working space compared to the HAM disc, which is a regular storage device, and it has the nature that all is cut off and thrown away at the same time unless it is formally stored in the auxiliary storage device. Considering the general perception of users related to temporary storage, it cannot be viewed as a reproduction of tangible objects as a "fixedness in the tangible object."

(3) The domains contain only a part of the program, not a whole, but only a part of the program. If the domains contain any open source or there is no copyright, it is not necessary to discuss the infringement of the right of reproduction. Therefore, the defendant must prove the part included in the domains by specifying it.

(4) As long as the instant program is installed on the user’s hard disc, the user should be deemed a lawful owner of the instant program. The user is naturally lawful as an incidental process of the ordinary exercise of ownership, which is indispensable in the process of using the instant program as an exercise of ownership. The restriction on the method of exercising ownership under the instant license to use the instant program for non-business purposes is not legally effective as it restricts ownership without legal basis.

(5) Reproduction in the domain of the instant program constitutes temporary reproduction in the course of the use of copyrighted works, as provided in Article 35-2 of the Copyright Act, and its main use does not constitute infringement of copyright. Therefore, it may be evaluated as lawful act in accordance with the aforementioned provision.

(6) In the case of the instant permit for use, there is a limitation that the instant permit for use should be used for non-business purposes, but it is limited to a simple method of use, and therefore, even if the user violated the said restriction by using the instant program for business purposes, it does not constitute copyright infringement. In addition, the terms and conditions limiting the use in non-business places are null and void by the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, and thus, it is not problematic

2) Determination as to whether the reproduction right due to temporary reproduction was infringed

A) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 27 (including paper numbers) and the arguments, where the instant program is implemented, the instant program is included in the main part of the user’s computer, with the process name “E.exe,” and accounts for the main part of 6,484-18,564KB of the user’s computer. In addition to the instant program, it can be recognized that the program, such as the program, is placed in the main part of the user’s computer, and the window screen (ms.exe), the design Astra Anirs (AvastUI.ex), the wind screen, and the wind screen (ex.e) are included in the main part while the program is implemented.

B) The Plaintiffs asserted that, in the case of a computer program, the time when the program implementation order exists in the main body is nothing more than the time of inspection. However, it is evident that the computer program continues to exist in the main body in the process of its implementation.

C) Also, the fact that computer programs are loaded on the joints of the window OS (referring to the joints in logical sense) is ultimately fixed in a temporary or electrical form to the RAM (referring to semiconductors in a sub-speing sense), which is a tangible object. As such, the instant program can be recognized as being fixed to the RAM, which is a tangible object in the implementation process, and temporary reproduction is made.

D) In the course of the instant program’s installation on a camera for the implementation of the instant program, the entire or part of the instant program is temporarily reproduced to the RAM. For the implementation of the instant program, it is apparent that the part recognized as creative as a work for the implementation of the program would also be reproduced, and the infringement of the right of reproduction may be recognized not only by the reproduction of the entire copyrighted work, but also by the partial reproduction. Therefore, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, the Defendant, the copyright holder, does not need to prove the part of the instant program that was reproduced to the RAM.

E) Therefore, individual users of the instant program carried out the instant program, thereby temporarily reproducing all or part of the instant program to the RAM of the computer (hereinafter “instant reproduction”), and barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that individual users of the instant program infringed on the Defendant’s right of reproduction among the author’s property rights to the instant program.

3) Determination on individual employers’ liability for damages

If a copyright holder's author's property right is infringed intentionally or by negligence, the infringing person shall compensate for the damages of the copyright holder caused by the infringement. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the user of the program knew or could know that the program was fixed to the RAM, which is a tangible object, as the program was loaded in the course of implementation of the program. Thus, individual user of the program of this case has the intention or negligence regarding the infringement of the right of reproduction of the program of this case, and individual user is liable to compensate for the damages caused by the infringement of the right of reproduction of the program of this case to the defendant (However, the defendant is not directly liable to the individual user, but is liable to compensate for damages to the plaintiffs by asserting that individual user's employee is liable to compensate for the damages under Article 756 of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the specific amount of damages should be determined after the determination of whether

4) Judgment on the plaintiffs' defenses, etc.

A) The assertion that the ownership is legitimate use based on ownership

(1) If the plaintiffs' assertion of ownership of the program of this case is deemed to have asserted of ownership of the program of this case itself, it cannot be recognized that the works itself are not author's property rights or author's moral rights, etc. recognized under the Copyright Act pursuant to Article 185 of the Civil Act, which provides a legal principle of real rights. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion based on ownership of the work of this case is without merit.

(2) Meanwhile, in a case where the plaintiffs' claim on the ownership of the program of this case is deemed to be based on the ownership of the tangible material (defick) in which the copyrighted work of this case was reproduced, the owner of the reproduced tangible material is not naturally recognized to have the right to use the author's property right, etc. which is owned by the author of a work fixed in the tangible material, and such assertion is without merit (the legal principle that the owner of a CD or camera tape record is unable to reproduce, perform publicly, transmit publicly, distribute, etc. the copyrighted work fixed in the relevant medium without the permission of the copyright holder).

B) The defendant's assertion that the use is based on the permission of use

(1) The Copyright Act provides, “The author of author’s property right may allow another person to exploit his/her work” (Article 46(1) of the Copyright Act) and “a person who has obtained permission under paragraph (1) may exploit his/her work in a manner and within the scope of such conditions so permitted (Article 46(2) of the Copyright Act).” In the case of copyright infringement, the claimant must prove that he/she acquired legitimate source of right to exploit the work, such as obtaining permission from the copyright holder for exploitation of the work in question, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da5593, Apr. 24, 2008).

(2) The instant authorization to use only for individual users who are not used for non-commercial/private use or for non-commercial/private use/private use. In other cases, the instant authorization can use the instant program only for the legitimate purchasing user, and only for the user who has acquired the legitimate permission to use the instant program. In light of the purport of the foregoing provision, it is reasonable to deem that the instant authorization to use within the scope of non-commercial/private use or non-commercial/private use use in the case of a user who did not purchase the instant program. In light of the purport of the foregoing provision, it is reasonable to deem that the instant authorization to use the instant program has been permitted to use the author’s property right, such as the right to reproduction, within the scope of non-commercial/private use or non-commercial/private use, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, and it cannot be deemed that the said authorization to use

(3) 결국 이 사건 이용허락에 따라 개별 사용자들이 이 사건 복제로 인하여 복제권을 침해하지 않았음이 인정되기 위해서는 적법한 저작물 이용권원을 취득하였을 주장하는 원고들이 허락받은 이용 방법 및 조건의 범위 안에서 이용하였음을 주장, 입증하여야 할 것인바, 이 사건 프로그램의 개별 사용자들이 이 사건 프로그램을 '비상업용 |개인용' 또는 '비업무용/개인용'으로 사용하였음을 인정할 아무런 증거가 없는 이상, 이 사건 이용허락에 따라 정당한 이용이라는 원고들의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

5) Claim for exemption under Article 35-2 of the Copyright Act

A) Article 35-2 of the Copyright Act provides, “If a work, etc. is used on a computer, such work, etc. may be temporarily reproduced on that computer to the extent deemed necessary for the smooth and efficient information processing: Provided, That the same shall not apply where the use of such work, etc. infringes on copyright.”

B) Where the reproduction of this case is deemed necessary for smooth and efficient processing of information, (1) where it is deemed necessary for smooth and efficient processing of information in the event of using a computer work, it refers to the case of temporary reproduction which is done through tampling 4 or tamping 5 in the process of using digital works or works stored in storage media or other storage media within a normal sense; (2) computer program itself takes action for processing specified information, such as digital works, and its reproduction does not constitute a temporary reproduction for efficient processing, and (3) in the case of temporarily storing and using a computer program, the reproduction of which is deemed necessary by Article 201 of the Copyright Act (including temporary reproduction of a computer program). 200 of the Copyright Act provides that the reproduction of this case’s work is deemed necessary for efficient processing of information, and (4) the reproduction of this case’s work is also an act of temporarily storing and using a computer program in accordance with Article 102 of the Copyright Act, and thus, the reproduction of this case’s work cannot be seen as an act of infringing work 1014 of the Copyright Act.

3. Determination as to whether an individual employer is liable for damages caused by a general tort

A. The defendant's assertion

Individual users themselves are obligated to pay compensation for tort to the Defendant, inasmuch as they: (a) deceptioned the Defendant that they would use them for non-business/private use; and (b) obtained permission to use the instant program; and (c) thereby inflicted property damage on the Defendant.

(b) Markets:

In this case, even if the individual users actively deceiving the defendant and received permission to use the program of this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a separate property damage other than property damage caused by the infringement of copyright and property rights of the program of this case due to the permission to use the program of this case. This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit (the damage caused to the defendant due to the infringement of property rights of author is not due to permission to use by deception as claimed by the defendant, but due to the infringement of property rights itself).

4. Determination as to whether the plaintiffs' liability for damages is recognized

A. The parties' assertion

1) The defendant's assertion

A) The instant program is a program installed on a company’s computer and used for business purposes together with other business programs used in drawing up documents. The employees of the Plaintiffs company were illegally reproduced and used for business purposes. The Plaintiffs are employers who actually direct and supervise their employees. The Plaintiffs are liable to compensate for damages in accordance with Article 756 of the Civil Act regarding the tort of infringement on copyright against the instant program, which occurred in the course of performing their duties.

B) Since the number of MAC fishers collected from each of the MAC service units assigned to the Plaintiffs is the same as the “Defendant’s claim number” column in the attached list, the Plaintiffs are obligated to pay each of the money indicated in the attached list in accordance with the price policy determined by the Defendant to the Defendant as compensation for damages.

2) The plaintiffs' assertion

A) Since the Plaintiffs’ employees could not be deemed to have used the instant program on the company’s computer for business purposes, it cannot be deemed that they were using it for the instant program. The Plaintiffs fulfilled their duty of care to create risks and take preventive measures by allowing them to comply with ordinary employees’ ethical education, and the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have fulfilled their duty of care, such as separate surveillance and warning regarding the use of the instant program.

B) A victim cannot be held liable if he knew of, or was unaware of, the fact that he does not constitute an act of performing his duties due to gross negligence. In the case of the instant program, the company did not have any reason to use the instant program in terms of profit-making, and as long as the Defendant intended to induce copyright infringement while inducing deception from the beginning, the Defendant cannot be deemed the victim. From the perspective of fairness, there is no need to protect the Defendant from the perspective

C) The Plaintiffs, as an employer, may be exempted from liability for damages when they paid considerable attention to the appointment of employees and the supervision of their businesses, or when they suffered losses even though they fulfilled considerable care. The Plaintiffs are limited to those supervised by employees so that they do not download the illegal reproduction of the software for business use, and have paid considerable attention to the supervision of their businesses.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The Defendant collected IP softs and MAC softens by transmitting them from the computers implementing the instant program. From April 1, 2012 to the date of the closing of the argument in the instant case, the number of the MAC softens collected from the Plaintiff’s authorized IP softens (11) are as indicated below in the following table.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

2) The instant program is used to capture necessary parts, such as the report, proposal, press data, planning, promotional materials, pictures, pictures, videos, etc. used in the preparation of promotional materials in the course of the company’s business, or to edit images, etc. upon closures.

3) After receiving the Defendant’s content-certified mail pertaining to the unlawful use of the instant program, the Plaintiffs took measures to prevent copyright infringement against employees.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 30 to 101, Eul evidence 28 to 31, 35, and 36 (including each number) are the purport of the whole entries and arguments. Relevant legal principles are relevant.

The phrase "in relation to the performance of an employee's business", which is an element for an employer's liability under Article 756 of the Civil Act, means that if an employee's unlawful act objectively appears to be objectively related to the employee's business activity, performance of business, or performance of business, without considering the offender's subjective circumstances. If an employee committed an harmful act to another person by intention, the employee's act is not itself based on the employee's intentional act, but is in close vicinity to the employee's business time and place in the whole or part of the employee's business, or if the harmful act is conducted in the course of performing his/her business or if the motive for the harmful act is related to the employee's business activity, it shall be deemed that the employee's act is objectively and objectively related to the employee's act of performing his/her business, and in this case, the employer's liability shall be established by considering that the occurrence of danger and the lack of preventive measures may be additionally considered for the fair burden of loss (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Da8682, Oct. 10, 197.

D. Determination as to whether an employer is liable

1) As recognized earlier, insofar as the Defendant’s authorized IP royalty collected in relation to the implementation of the instant program is recognized to have been allocated to the Plaintiffs, it is reasonable to presume that a computer using the said authorized IP royalty is a computer used by the Plaintiffs’ employees or, at least, a computer used by a person in a de facto relationship of direction and supervision, and thus, the relationship of use between individual users of the instant program and the Plaintiffs should be recognized.

Although the plaintiffs asserted that there was a computer used by outside persons who are not the plaintiffs' employees, there was no evidence to reverse the above presumption. However, with respect to the part of the MAC so that there is no evidence to find out that the pertinent MAC ID was allocated to the above plaintiffs among the part claimed by the defendant, the individual users of the program of this case cannot be recognized as the employees of the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

2) Next, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the health team, the above facts of recognition, and the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., ① the program of this case was provided free of charge to all users before June 7, and was widely used in relation to the business of the company, etc. ② the Plaintiffs also stated in this court that they continued to use the program of this case without being aware of the fact that the program of this case was used in the process of using the free program of this case. ③ The program of this case may be used individually, but the program of this case is widely used in the process of making reports, proposals, presses, planning, promotional materials, etc., (4) the Plaintiffs did not assert or prove that the individual users used the program of this case, regardless of the court’s name to submit facts about whether they used the program of this case for individuals, and (5) the Plaintiffs did not submit the Plaintiffs’ individual program of this case to the Defendant’s employees or employees in the process of executing the program of this case to prevent infringement of their individual program of this case.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiffs are liable to compensate the Defendant for damages incurred by individual employers due to the infringement of the right of reproduction of the instant program in relation to the Plaintiffs’ performance of their duties as individual employers.

4) However, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant has the claim for damages against the Plaintiffs regarding the act of infringement by individual users related to the MAC licensing collected prior to the Defendant’s transfer of copyright to the instant program, but as to the act of infringement prior to the transfer of copyright, the damage claim has been vested in the copyright holder at the time of the act of infringement. Thus, unless there is any assertion or proof that the Defendant transferred the damage claim against the Plaintiffs from the copyright transferor C and notified the Plaintiffs of the transfer of the right of transfer, the Defendant’s claim for damages against the act of infringement prior to March 31, 2012, which is the date of the Defendant’s copyright transfer, does not need further review ( therefore, in calculating the specific amount of damages, the MAC number collected prior to March 31, 2012 does not take into account).

5) The Plaintiffs did not know that they did not constitute the Defendant’s act of performing their duties or did not know due to gross negligence, and the Plaintiffs, the employer, were the employees, and supervised their business

Although it is alleged that it constitutes a time when considerable attention was paid or when damage was incurred, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit. E. Determination as to the amount of damage is without merit.

1) The defendant's assertion

If an employer intends to use the instant program for business purposes, he/she may use the instant program permanently upon payment of the sales price and obtaining permission to use the license. Such a method is referred to as "pad-up method", and the instant program was sold by such "pad-up method". Therefore, pursuant to Article 125(1) and (2) of the Copyright Act, the Plaintiffs are obliged to pay as damages the amount equivalent to the expenses already paid if the Plaintiffs regularly purchased the instant program to the Defendant for business purposes.

2) Calculation of damages pursuant to Article 125(1) and (2) of the Copyright Act

The defendant asserts the amount equivalent to the cost that the plaintiffs paid if they bought the program of this case regularly for business purposes. However, the plaintiffs do not compensate for the defendant's damages caused by their direct copyright infringement, but are liable for the defendant's damages caused by their individual copyright infringement. Therefore, the amount of damages that the plaintiffs bear should be calculated by adding the damages inflicted on the defendant by individual employers, and the price policy applicable to the case where the plaintiffs directly purchase the program of this case.

The determination of the amount of damages cannot be calculated, and there is a question as to whether the program in this case was set excessively higher prices compared to other programs performing similar functions in the process of pay-free, even though it was offered for a considerable period of time, and sales under the above price was actually conducted. Even if a part of the program was sold, it seems that the purchaser inevitably takes the form of purchase in accordance with the Defendant’s pricing policy to avoid civil and criminal disadvantages due to copyright infringement in a situation similar to the Plaintiffs. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the amount calculated according to the Defendant’s pricing policy determined by the Defendant is the profit earned by the individual users who are victims under Article 125(1) of the Copyright Act or the amount which can be ordinarily received by exercising the right under Article 125(2)

3) Determination of damages pursuant to Article 126 of the Copyright Act

Ultimately, this case is difficult to calculate the amount of damages pursuant to Article 125 of the Copyright Act.

As such, a reasonable amount of damages should be recognized pursuant to Article 126 of the Copyright Act. In light of all the circumstances revealed through the following: (a) the details and degree of each user’s copyright infringement of the program of this case; (b) the Defendant’s program of this case was provided free for a considerable period of time; (c) the price of the paid program similar to the program of this case; (d) the existence of a free program replacing the program of this case; and (e) the Plaintiffs’ measures to prevent the recurrence of the program of this case; and (e) the result of the examination of evidence, it is reasonable for individual users to determine the amount to be compensated for the infringement of the program of this case as KRW 20,00 per each MAC broadcast; and (e) the amount to be compensated by the Plaintiffs as employers shall be calculated by multiplying the number of MAC sets collected from each individual user by the said 20

4) Sub-committee

A) Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, except for Plaintiff Texem Co., Ltd., Ltd., No. Round, Muz Financial Information Services Co., Ltd., global company, U.S., U.S. Central Education, Korea Swesco Co., Ltd., Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Bobsteco Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Mabsteco Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Gabstey Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and Mad Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and Mad Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Mad Co., Ltd., Ltd., the remainder of the Plaintiffs are obligated to pay to the Defendant an amount calculated by multiplying 20,00 won by the number of MAC Sbs, collected from each assigned IP address address, and the following day after the delivery date of a duplicate of the counterclaim of this case, from September 26, 2013

B) In addition, as long as the Defendant asserts that there is an employer’s liability against the Plaintiffs, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the absence of employer’s liability for damages arising from the infringement of the copyright of the instant program against the Defendant. Therefore, it is confirmed that the Plaintiffs’ damages liability against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the infringement of copyright of the software as indicated in the attached list does not exceed 5% per annum from September 26, 2013 to February 21, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff Texem Co., Ltd., Nos., Maz Financial Information Service Co., Ltd., Ltd., Mazz Information Service Co., Ltd., World Swez Central Education Co., Ltd., Korea Swesco Co., Ltd., Korea Swesco Co., Ltd., Ltd., Mebsteco Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Mebsteco Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Mazz Financial Information Service Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Mazz Financial Information Service Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Mazz Information Service Co.,, Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., World Swesz Information Service Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Maz., Korea Ltd., Maz., No.

Judges Kang Jin-hun

Judges Kim Dong-hee

The argument was changed to the purport that employees’ liability for copyright infringement is asserted, not copyright infringement. The Plaintiffs also changed to the purport that they are employers.

In the end, the damage liability for which the plaintiffs' non-existence is sought is the direct copyright infringement of the plaintiffs.

It is reasonable to see that the plaintiffs' employees' copyright infringement liability is not the damages liability, but the plaintiffs' employees' copyright infringement liability.

The obligation to seek is not a liability for damages arising from the plaintiffs' copyright infringement, but a liability for damages arising from the employees' copyright infringement.

Determination shall be reasonable.

(ii) recorded in the physical address of the Enet (Emert) and in the read memory system (ROM) of the Enet Card (IT language prior, Telecommunications Technology Association of Korea).

In ordinary computers, a MAC device for communications has been loaded on the franchise card, and a MAC device is a unique address.

Since it has a rare, each computer can be identified through the MAC Airs.

(iii) means storing a certain area of the computer screen in a separate image file, etc.;

4) Method of temporarily storing information in order to facilitate the transmission and reception of information and absorbing the difference in the processing speed (IT language prior, Korea Information Network);

(New Technology Association)

(v) temporarily storing data in disks capital (IT language prior, Korea Information and Communications Technology Association);

6) It means only the use of a program in a factual sense other than the use of an author’s property right.

7) The defendant asserted a tort against the plaintiffs in the counterclaim, but thereafter, the defendant asserted that the "user's liability" of the plaintiffs was asserted in the preparatory documents, and the plaintiffs.

Corporation is not a direct actor with regard to individual reproduction, and corporation itself's tort liability due to the act of the representative of the plaintiffs.

In full view of the facts that there is no assertion, it is reasonable to view that an individual employer has claimed damages due to a general tort.

of this chapter.

8) The indication of “stock company” is omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply.

19) The criteria for entries in the counterclaim.

10) It includes only those collected from IP licensings that have been recognized to have been allocated to the Plaintiffs during the entire period of time.

11) In ordinary IP licensings are allocated to each station (e.g., May 151. 154. 128. 211. 151. 154. 191). A network based on the evidence submitted by the Defendant.

If the pertinent IP exists in the opposite page of the party information, it was determined as the IP post assigned to each plaintiffs.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.