The Defendants, from December 2013 to December 2014, 2013, the following following the Plaintiff’s registration of each copyright, opened part of the Plaintiff’s novels on the Internet website without the Plaintiff’s permission, thereby allowing many and unspecified persons to download it.

As to this, the defendants were subject to a disposition of suspending indictment or being suspected by the investigative agency.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the whole documentary evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings (Defendant B shall be deemed as confessions)

2. Determination

A. In the case of Defendant E in the event of liability for damages, the prosecutor was subject to a disposition that there was no suspicion (A 3-15), but the fact of business is dead.

Article 125(4) of the Copyright Act provides that "Any person who infringes on the rights of registered copyright, exclusive publication right (including cases applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Articles 88 and 96), publication right, neighboring right or database producer shall be presumed to have been negligent in such act of infringement." Thus, the assertion by Defendant E alone is insufficient to reverse such presumption.

Defendant C asserts that the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages against the above Defendant has expired due to the completion of the statute of limitations.

The prosecutor of the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office acknowledged on May 28, 2014 that he/she suspended indictment against Defendant C on May 28, 2014, and around that time, the complainant notified the Plaintiff, who was the complainant, of the fact of disposition.

(The instant lawsuit was filed on March 7, 2017). The nature of the instant copyright infringement act is that it is difficult for the victim to accurately specify the perpetrator at the time of the filing of the complaint, and only the ID or IP used for the instant infringement is filed.