A. As from April 22, 2015, Defendant B: 400,000 won and its related thereto:

B. Defendant C shall be KRW 1,000,000, and

A. The Plaintiff is the representative of the planning company to which D, etc. belong, who holds neighboring rights to the reproduction, distribution, etc. of the phonograms recorded in the performance of the above D, as the representative of the planning company to which D, etc. belong.

B. On April 22, 2015, Defendant B inserted and sold 5 e.g., “F”, etc., where the Plaintiff had neighboring rights, in which 5 e.g., “F” was performed by the Plaintiff, and inserted and sold e.g., “G” into the MP3 m., one reproduced e.g., “G.”

C. On May 14, 2015, Defendant C inserted and sold 199 SDRs in the sound records, such as “H,” etc., where the Plaintiff had neighboring rights, and then inserted and sold one copy of 199 SDRs into the MP3 flasc, “G.”

[Ground for recognition] Defendant B: The fact that there is no dispute over Defendant C: the entries and images of evidence No. 30-1 to 5, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Defendants are liable for damages sustained by the Plaintiff since the Plaintiff violated the Plaintiff’s neighboring rights by intentionally or by negligence by selling illegally reproduced SDRs.

B. (1) Under Article 125(2) of the Plaintiff’s assertion of damages, the holder of author’s property right, etc. may claim damages in the amount of damages suffered by the holder of author’s property right, etc. by the amount of money equivalent to the amount ordinarily entitled to receive due to the exercise of his/her right. In light of the amount of usage fees given and received when the Plaintiff entered into a recent contract for the use of music sources, the amount of usage fees received by him/her when the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the use of music sources, and the extent of designation of D., it is reasonable to deem that

Therefore, Defendant B’s KRW 5 million for the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 1 million per grain x KRW 5.5); Defendant C’s KRW 199 million = KRW 1 million per grain x KRW 1 million per grain.