beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.04.23 2019나32020

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

Reasons

1. The public officials of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education under the Plaintiff’s assertion made by the Defendant posted the letter program produced by the Plaintiff illegally at around 2010, and then used it on August 8, 201, October 21, 201, and on May 4, 2012, February 12, 2013, March 19, 2013; the date of April 8, 2013; the date of Dec. 26, 2013; the date of Jan. 17, 2014; the date of Jan. 17, 2014; the same shall apply to each of the following documents: each of the instant documents prepared and written records prepared by the Defendants: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 24475, Apr. 17, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 26508, Apr. 17, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 25372, Jan. 26, 2015>

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 5,00,000 won and damages for delay equivalent to the amount which the plaintiff would normally receive by exercising the copyright of the body.

2. The determination file constitutes a computer program and is recognized as creative identity of a producer in the production of a documentary file. As such, a computer program work (see Article 2 subparag. 16 of the Copyright Act) is protected under the Copyright Act (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do732, May 15, 2001). Therefore, the act of downloading a documentary file without permission of the copyright holder constitutes an act infringing the right of reproduction regarding the documentary file.

Considering the overall purport of the arguments in Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 9, 11, and 14 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same), the defendant did not purchase the plaintiff's letter program; the defendant used the body produced by the plaintiff in part of each of the documents of this case posted by public officials belonging to the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education on the homepage of the Gyeonggi-do Office of Education; in particular, in the case of other documents written on the same original file in the case of documents written on August 8, 201, October 21, 201, and May 4, 2012, the plaintiff's body was not used; and in the case of the document written on August 8, 2011 (wholly amended by the Enforcement Rule of the Gyeonggi-do Ordinance on the Establishment of Schools), two kinds of plaintiffs in the past rules.