beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.24 2014나62403

손해배상

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is operating the Internet shopping mall, etc., “unholder” (hereinafter “Plaintiff shopping mall”) that sells health assistance food, and the Defendant also operates the Internet shopping mall “B” (C; hereinafter “Defendant shopping mall”) that sells health assistance food.

B. From September 201 to March 2012, the Plaintiff taken photographs of the products sold in the said shopping mall via a person in charge of design work of the Plaintiff shopping mall from September 201, to March 2012, and produced an image, etc. with an explanation written on the relevant photograph and posted it in the Plaintiff shopping mall.

C. From September 2012 to May 2013, 2013, the Defendant sold the same “D”, “F”, and “E” (hereinafter “each product of this case”) as the products sold by the Plaintiff in Defendant shopping mall. The Plaintiff sold the same products.

Among the products photographs produced and posted in the same manner as in paragraph (1), three copies of “D” product photographs (attached Form A No. 5-2-4), five copies of “E” product photographs (attached Form A-6-2-6), and five copies of “E” product photographs (attached Form A-6-6), were posted in Defendant shopping mall.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap's 1 to 9 and 11 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the assertion of copyright infringement under the Copyright Act

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff had infringed author's property rights (right of reproduction, distribution, and public transmission) and author's moral rights (right of attribution and right of integrity) of the plaintiff's pictures of this case by arbitrarily inserting the plaintiff's copyrighted work in the defendant shopping mall. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that each of the pictures of this case is not a copyrighted work protected under the Copyright Act.

(b) the scope of literary, scientific or artistic works to be protected under the judgment of copyright law;

참조조문