Law Firm LLC, Attorney Park Jae-soo

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Attorney Choi Sang-hoon, Song-young, and Lest Resources, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The Defendant:

(a) 1,168, 114, 291 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from October 31, 2015 to the date of full payment;

B. From April 1, 2015, the Defendant paid the money calculated at the rate of KRW 83,436,735 each month from the date of suspension of the Defendant’s act of providing the game under paragraph 1 to the general users.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

4. 1/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant.

5.Paragraphs 1 and 2 may be provisionally executed.

(2) The defendant from April 1, 2015 to the date of full payment of 20% per annum from the day following day to day of full payment; and

each month until the day of suspending the act of providing the game under Paragraph 1 of this Article to the general users

87,855,864 won each shall be paid with money calculated in proportion to 87,855,864 won.

A. The Plaintiff is a domestic legal entity that completed the registration of incorporation on February 20, 2006 for the purpose of the development and operation of online game sites, online contents development and distribution business, etc. as part of the group that is a holding company holding company based on digital platforms such as computers and mobile devices (hereinafter referred to as “digital”). The Defendant is a domestic legal entity located in the Republic of Mata that conducts the business of developing and providing games based on digital platforms such as computers and mobile devices.

B. At the time of the running of the Plaintiff’s game in this case, the Plaintiff developed a Pampa, the form of “(match - 3-game)” (1) game in around 2010, along with a new game development from September 2012 to around 13, 200, such as “Dital JWter Limited” (hereinafter referred to as “digital posters”), and started a new game development around April 2013, and around 300: (a) * (Farm** * Saa) game (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s game in this case”) by developing Pampa, which is in the form of “(fatch).”

10. Once the Kakaothy platform sent the Plaintiff’s game of this case to each level, the basic method of the Plaintiff’s game of this case was set up in Kakaothy platform. 2) The basic method of the Plaintiff’s game of this case, which connects specific different dates to three or more straight lines, is a set that the other is set in the number of goals given each phase by obtaining the points of the pertinent other days, as much as the number of different days, and - 3- The basic form of the game of this case is set up in every stage of the game, such as the rule that allows the other days to increase the scores of neighboring days when the other days stand, and added new rules to each stage of the game, and to add a particular obstacle that obstructs the achievement of the goal and, at the same time, assist the other days to circumvent or purchase such obstacles.

C. On February 11, 2014, the Defendant: (a) developed and released the Defendant’s game “(s)” (hereinafter “Defendant’s game”); (b) around February 11, 201, the Defendant provided htps:/ / pamp.com/ sore/ lapss? D = “htps” or “htps: / ps.com/ gpss/ pss/ uns. laps. laps/ lapss. **** * * * * Mahya- the Internet game of this case)’s address.”

2) The basic method of the instant Defendant Game also consists of a game that adopts the same method as the basic method of the instant Plaintiff Game, such as adding new rules, such as a rule by which the value of scores of adjoining other days is high, and adding specific obstacles that interfere with the achievement of a particular ticket, and adding items (fuses) that may remove them. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute or is no clear dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including numbers if there are numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

1) The facts having the right of legal representation in a civil lawsuit or obtaining the authority for procedural acts must be attested in writing (Article 58(1)2 of the Civil Procedure Act). This also applies to the case where a party to a lawsuit is a corporation (Article 64(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). The Plaintiff did not submit the documents proving that it was lawfully established or the documents proving that it was the Plaintiff’s representative, and it is unclear whether the Plaintiff’s legal representative was duly granted the right of legal representation from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the instant lawsuit filed in such a state is unlawful due to the defect in the litigation requirements and thus dismissed.

B. Determination

1) Each entry of Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-20, 21, and 27 . The defendant contests 1-2's "the site for the authenticity of Gap evidence 1-1 and Gap evidence 17," each of the above documents is accompanied by a certificate (a de 5 ocre 1961) which is written in frane for all the plaintiff's 1-2's title as a public document to the effect that the plaintiff's 5-2's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail's e-mail'.

2) According to the above facts, the plaintiff is legally registered in accordance with the laws and regulations of the other Republic of Madice, and the "Jhumksksksksksksksksksksksksksks, among the plaintiff's directors, have legitimate power of representation concerning the procedure of the lawsuit. The plaintiff's attorney is legally delegated the authority of the plaintiff's other directors to the lawsuit of this case by "Madsksksksksksks," and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's representative has obtained approval

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the above merits is without merit.

3. Determination as to the assertion of copyright infringement

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) In the case of a game, the association of the game rules that provide the user with the experience specified in the game is selected by the game developer from among many expression forms without permission, and the game developer's creation and identity are expressed. The selection of the game rules, the selection, arrangement, and new rules, the visual design of the game, the combination of each constituent element, and the composition and arrangement of the game screen, etc. constitute a creative expression, which is subject to protection under the Copyright Act. However, the defendant sent the game game of this case identical or substantially similar to the plaintiff's game of this case, such as the union of the game rules and its specification, and the selection and arrangement of the game rules, and the defendant's act constitutes an act infringing the plaintiff's copyright. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes an act of reproducing the creative expression form of the plaintiff's game of this case, and thus infringing the plaintiff's copyright, each of them is claimed against the defendant as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Whether the Plaintiff is the copyright holder of the Plaintiff’s game of this case

1) First of all, the Plaintiff started to develop the Plaintiff’s game from around September 2012 to around April 2013, along with the Plaintiff’s copyright holder of the instant game, and the fact that the Plaintiff launched the Plaintiff’s game from around April 2013. In full view of the overall arguments stated in the Evidence Nos. 18, 22, and 24, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the development of the instant game with the Plaintiff on December 19, 2013 (GME D) (GE D) and each of the instant intellectual property rights provision to the Plaintiff, which is a development entity such as the game bar code, and the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the development of the Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights and each of the instant intellectual property rights provision to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “OPE 1, 2013”).

2) According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff produced the plaintiff's game of this case jointly with "digital posters" and "Mabrop displays", or that at least he lawfully acquired all intellectual property rights related to the plaintiff's game of this case from "digital posters" and "Mabrop displays" which produced the plaintiff's game of this case and acquired the copyright of this case on an original basis. Thus, the plaintiff is the copyright holder of the plaintiff's game of this case.

C. Whether the Defendant Game of this case infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act provides that a work shall be "a creative work that expresses human thoughts or emotions." A creative work referred to in the above provision refers to a work that has originality and creativity, even though it does not require complete originality, it shall not be deemed that a work simply imitates others, and shall include the author's own independent ideas or emotions. Thus, it shall not be deemed a creative work if it contains any expression that does not have the same or similar creative identity of the author (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do965, Jan. 27, 2005, etc.). In addition, the subject of copyright protection is a creative form that specifically expresses ideas or emotions obtained by human mental efforts with respect to learning and art by means of words, letters, sound, etc., and it shall not be deemed as a creative expression that is not a creative work nor a creative expression that constitutes a infringement of copyright itself (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do965, Jan. 27, 2005).

On the other hand, abstract game hosts, background of basic game, game development methods and rules;

Game step change, etc. is merely a idea as a concept, method, method, method, and instrument of creation of a game, and thus cannot be protected under the Copyright Act. Furthermore, if there are only one methods to express a certain idea, or if there is a limit in the method of expression due to technical or conceptual constraints even if one or more methods are possible, such expressions are substantially similar only if they are not protected under the Copyright Act or if they are imitated as they are, and thus, they cannot be protected under the Copyright Act.

Furthermore, in order for the game development method, rules, etc. to be recognized as an inherent expression of a game work and be subject to the protection of the copyright, it should be a case where it can be seen as an expression because it reveals the identity of the author in the form of expression in itself or the selection and arrangement of such a game itself, from among many expressions. In a case where the expression is restricted due to the restriction of the game itself, such as the fact that the game itself indicates the limits of manipulation and expression, the degree of competition, the game capacity, compatibility, etc. of users, it cannot be deemed that a certain game method or rules are inherent in the game, and rather, such game method or rules should be allowed not to have exclusive rights for a specific person, but to make various games freely used to create a variety of games.

2) In the case of the Rules of the Plaintiff’s Game itself, the part of the Rules, which characterized the Plaintiff’s Game, is itself

(1) In full view of the above basic facts and the purport of the entire arguments, in the case of the plaintiff game of this case, the first introduction of the following rules in addition to the basic rules of "value - 3- Game", but it can be acknowledged that the above rules have been adopted in the defendant game of this case at a later time. However, such rules are merely an attempt to determine abstract concepts or lengths, and the game development is merely an idea, and it cannot be said that the above rules themselves are protected under the Copyright Act. Furthermore, in order for the plaintiff game of this case and the defendant game of this case to achieve the goals given at each stage, it cannot be seen that the above rules have an effect on the formation of stories or bars in the game of this case, which are similar to the novels in the process of the game of this case, and it cannot be seen that the above rules have an effect on the formation of the plaintiff game of this case or the defendant game of this case, which can only be applied to each of the above individual game of this case, by means of the combination or combination itself.

(3) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s game of this case and the Defendant’s game of this case are all in the basic form - 3- Game, and their rules must be expressed on the smartphone screen. Therefore, it is difficult to view that there are very diverse methods to effectively express the above rules within such limits, and the following results are as follows.

① In the case of “Basic Boners Rule” or “Additional Boners Rule, both the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game in this case are expressed by using a yellow symbol (i.e., + or x x x) and numbers in the original of a yellow color at the right side of the character. However, the method of indicating Boners scores by using the smoke acid and numbers is merely a method adopted in the smartphone game in which the character appears, and it cannot be seen as a creative selection of the yellow and yellow color, and it is difficult to easily present a variety of expressions that can be effectively expressed in a limited game screen.

② In the case of “FIC”, both the Plaintiff’s game in this case and the Defendant’s game in this case provide even if they were against the previous screen. First, the effect of a half even is not only a form of expression that is used more in the game screen, but also a form of expression that is used more in the game screen. In the case of a fishing fIC, the game must continue to be operated so that the points can be added even after the goal has been achieved, so it is not possible to reduce a large change on the existing game screen, and it is difficult to view that there is an effective and diverse method that can express fIC differently under this creation.

③ Unlike the general level of level, in order to realize the "Code of Morax Rule", unlike the general level of Morax, it is difficult to understand that the expression of the character of the musical character is the most easy and easy way to use it in a way of attacking the character of the musical character in the case of the plaintiff game in the case of the case of the plaintiff game in the case of the case of the case of the designated attack, the character of the Moraxu (e.g., l., l., l., l., l.e., l., l., l., l.e., l., l., l., l.e., l., l., l., l.e., l., l., l., l.e., l., l., l., l.e., l., l., l., l., l.).

④ In expressing a special square that makes it impossible to obtain points even if other days are different, the Plaintiff’s game of this case and the Defendant’s game of this case are using the part of “ice” and “ice”. - In the game, the basic form of characters shall be maintained, but only a part of them shall be changed, so it is necessary to express that the character is a special character. Within this limit, it is possible to easily think of the method of changing the character’s expression of an ordinary character, and in light of its effect, it is natural that the character is expressed in a negative manner such as ppuri or chemicaling, and it is difficult to see that there are many other various methods.

⑤ In case of special partitions that grant Bobner points, both the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game are expressed in the shape of a cryp or swimming. The Plaintiff’s game in this case is expressed in the shape of a cryp or swimming.

In light of the fact that the background of the game of this case is a farm and the background of the defendant game of this case is a forest, it seems that it is relatively difficult to think that the idea that the defendant game of this case is using a cryp and positive cryp or swimming in expressing special partitions with positive effect as above is being expressed.

6) With respect to “Special Rule on Other Days,” the Plaintiff Game in this case is composed of special partitions, and the special paintings are charactered in water, while the Defendant Game in this case is composed of special partitions and special partitions, and its detailed expressions are entirely different except that the above rule is implemented.

1. The plaintiff game of this case is expressed in the way of drinking an animal in order to realize the ‘ interfering rule by removing one character of a specific kind of character at random.' However, the defendant game of this case is the basic character related to the farm, and the defendant game of this case is the basic character related to the farm, and the defendant game of this case is the basic character. The defendant game of this case is a certain character that can drink the relevant character (in the case of the plaintiff game of this case, mos in the case of the plaintiff game of this case, and us can easily think that the plaintiff game of this case can easily see it by appearing in the case of the defendant game of this case) to express the removal of the character.

(4) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s inherent expression concerning the Plaintiff’s game cannot be deemed as an expression protected under the Copyright Act solely because it is difficult to view the author’s identity among diverse expressions that can effectively express the said new rules, and in a case where the said rules or game development methods are combined with a specific and visual form, such as characters that express them, color, design, etc., only such specific expression may be protected under the Copyright Act.

3) Comparing actual similarity between the Plaintiff Game in this case and the specific expression of the Defendant Game in this case

Therefore, in judging the substantial similarity between the plaintiff game of this case and the defendant game of this case, only the other specific expressions except the above elements shall be prepared, and the following facts shall be acknowledged in full view of the above basic facts and the purport of the whole arguments.

A) In the case of a road map screen:

(1) The road map screen of the Plaintiff Game in this case and the Defendant Game in this case are both displayed various information on the upper end of each map, and in the shape of a string or release, which indicates the number of times in which the game can be performed and the currency of the game are displayed. On the other hand, under the guidance above, two disputes, which are the signs indicating each phase, are placed in the shape of Sick-type road. On the other hand, the road screen of the level which has not arrived at, is not a color of the yellow, and the face of the reached level is expressed in the shape of the yellow, and the face of the "in battle" is expressed in the shape of the yellow, and is expressed in the shape of the yellow, and in accordance with the degree of its achievement, it is similar in that it is expressed in one to three ways in the shape of the yellow road.

(2) However, in the case of the above-mentioned game, the above information is placed on the top of the top, and the method of placing the set on a Sho-style path capable of displaying a lot of stages as far as possible in a limited screen ("Who-style game") or the method of displaying the set in the color in the case of an unsho-style level ( below "Agry Biro" and "Acebro-style game" in the case of an unsho-style game) constitutes an ordinary expression type used in other games displayed before the plaintiff game in this case. In addition, when comparing the specific expression form, in the case of a Sho-style game pattern, the part of the plaintiff game in this case is parallel with the screen and the straight line, and in the case of the remaining part of the defendant game in the case of a narrow line, the remaining part of the bar-style game in the case of the defendant game in this case is a narrow line, while the remaining part of the bar-style game in the case of the defendant game in this case is a direct display type.

(4) In full view of these points, in the case of a road map screen, the Plaintiff’s game of this case and the Defendant’s game of this case are not substantially similar.

B) In the case of a guide that is presented after the road map screen on the part (1) of the map screen after the implementation of each stage after the road map screen, both the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game in this case are similar in that both have a more detailed rectangular part on the basis of the yellow system, and the notice, target character, and their numbers are basically shown in that both the Plaintiff’s game in this case and the Defendant’s game in this case are basically on the basis of the yellow system. However, this is not only a method of presenting ordinarily used goals in other games, but also the guidance of the Defendant’s game in this case as the guidance of the Plaintiff’s game in this case is different in its specific color, instruction, and character.

(2) On the other hand, in the case of the guidance of the upper group of the game of this case and the defendant game of this case, all of the plaintiff game of this case and the defendant game of this case are marked with the original flag and the separate shape indicating the frequency of movement and the degree of achievement on the basis of the yellow system, and the number of target characters is indicated in the upper group, and when the goal is achieved, the number is changed to the original flag and the flag mark is also partly similar. However, in the case of the plaintiff game of this case, the number of movementable numbers and the original flag, and the achievement degree are all located above the left upper part, and the shape of the defendant game of this case is marked with the body flag on the left upper part, while the number of movementable times is located on the right upper part, and the location and shape of the body flag, without any separate shape, are different.

(3) Furthermore, the lower part of the game screen is also located in a different shape and color, each of which aims to achieve the purpose of the game as a whole on the basis of yellow, and in the case of posters not yet acquired, it is similar in part to a white lock, each of which is one of the two. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s game in this case and the Defendant’s game in this case, the function of the posters should be limited to either eliminating one line or eliminating a specific character, etc., in that the function of the posters is similar to that of the game in this case, and it cannot be seen as copyright infringement. However, in the case of the Plaintiff’s game in this case, the color of the posters in this case is yellow, yellow, yellow, green, shape, size, green, green, and the shape of the posters in this case, and some of the shape of the posters in this case, namely, the color of the Plaintiff’s game in this case, the color of the posters in this case, the size of the Plaintiff’s game in this case, as well as the color and shape of the animals in this case.

(4) In full view of these points, the game of this case and the defendant game of this case cannot be deemed as having been substantially similar to the game of this case on the screen of the whole target of the game presented after the road map screen and the display of the upper end and lower end of the game.

C) In the case of a game screen:

(1) In the case of the game screen, both the plaintiff game of this case and the defendant game of this case are similar aspects such as the character has a three-dimensional face form, the visual color is the same as the visual face color, and the three-dimensional character is in the middle of the game, the three-dimensional character is an hinging, the hing, and the basic color of the other is a chromatic color and the hing color of the other is a chromatic color of the yellow color, the sign of the Bobner score is expressed in the yellow color of the yellow, the sign of the Bobner score is expressed in the yellow pattern of the yellow, and the effect of the hing is added to the hingm.

( 2 ) 그러나 캐릭터의 경우 우선 이 사건 원고 게임은 농장과 관련된 채소나 과일, 물방울, 햇빛을 채택하고 있는 반면, 이 사건 피고 게임은 숲과 관련된 동물 , 버섯 등을 채택하고 있어서 그 외관 자체가 상이하다. 나아가 각 캐릭터의 눈동자의 색깔을 캐릭터의 기본적인 색깔과 동일한 계열의 색을 사용한다는 것은 제한된 캐릭터를 특징적으로 표현하기 위하여 서로 다른 색깔을 사용하고 있는 게임의 특성상 불가피한 방법이라 할 것이고, 캐릭터들이 기본적으로 얼굴 모양을 하고 있으므로 눈을 깜박이거나 혀를 내미는 방법으로 캐릭터를 묘사하는 것 역시 통상 생각할 수 있는 표현방법에 해당한다. 나아가 힌트를 주는 방법의 경우 게임의 난이도 조절상 너무 쉽게 힌트를 제공할 수는 없는 점에 비추어 캐릭터가 살짝 뛰어오르는 방식으로 힌트를 주는 방식 역시 쉽게 생각할 수 있는 방법에 해당한다고 보이고, 위에서 아래로 타일이 내려오는 특성상 바닥에 닿으면 살짝 아래로 찌그러지는 모양을 하는 것도 자연스러운 것이어서 그것만으로 특징적인 표현이라고 하기 어렵다 . ( 3 ) 한편 히어로 모드의 경우 이 사건 원고 게임은 파란색 계통의 타일을 그대로 사용하고 있는 반면, 이 사건 피고 게임의 경우 그 타일이 노란색 계통의 타일로 바뀌므로 그 분위기가 달라질 뿐만 아니라, 반짝임 모양 역시 통상의 게임에서 쉽게 사용할 수 있는 효과 가운데 하나임은 앞서 살펴본 바와 같다 .

(5) In full view of these points, the game screen is not substantially similar to the Plaintiff’s game of this case.

e)in the case of special typists:

(1) The plaintiff game of this case and the defendant game of this case present a special day that can remove all stages. In the case of a special day of 3rd degree, the shape "in the case of a special day of 4rd degree," "in the case of the 3rd degree," the 4th degree, the 4th level, "in the case of the 4th level, the son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son.

(f)in the case of special partitions:

(1) A special partition that makes it impossible to obtain all scores of the Plaintiff Game of this case and the Defendant Game of this case is being used as a special partitions that has the function of restoring points to different days in general, and special partitions that make it impossible to obtain scores. In the case of special partitions that cannot obtain scores, characters are gleeped in a pirm, and the test is being carried with coloring, special partitions that do not obtain scores, and the special partitions that indicate the special partitions that changing from different days to other days in general, are partially similar.

(2) However, in the case of a ppuri character, since both the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game expressed the character in the face shape, in order to express a negative image that is unable to obtain points under such setting, it would be an effective and easy way to express the character through the ice, such as color, in preparation for cases where each character cannot be easily known only with the changes in the blue, at the same time, in a negative form of the blue of each character, and there is no other various methods to express the negative methods under the aforementioned setting.

(3) In the case of special partitions for which points are not awarded, there are examples of using yellow as negative images in other games. However, in the case of the original black, the color mixed with yellow and yellow color is used widely for negative image expressions such as wheel, slurry or addiction. Therefore, it is difficult to view that it is practically similar solely by displaying the partitions with which points cannot be awarded.

(4) Furthermore, in the case of the instant Defendant Game, it would be easy to think that the color is used to realize a positive image, such as that it is possible to obtain a beam score out of the images related to the forest, inasmuch as the forest is based on the basic background. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff in the instant case.

On the other hand, in the case of the defendant game of this case, the special typology is close to turf, while the visual appearance is also different. (5) In full view of this point, even in the case of special partitions, the plaintiff game of this case and the defendant game of this case cannot be deemed as having been substantially similar.

g)in the case of special rules:

(1) In the instant Plaintiff’s game and the instant Defendant’s game, it makes it difficult to proceed with the game by applying the “Rules of Disturbance” as seen earlier, and as such, a specific character is expressed by the method of eating a kind of character in the land where the specific character comes to the ground, and a change of interference with the surrounding partitions is deemed to be a situation in which it is impossible to temporarily interfere with for the following three months. In this regard, there is some similarity in that sense.

(2) However, the interference rule itself cannot be deemed as an idea and subject to copyright protection. In the case of the Plaintiff Game, the expression of a character that can drink a specific character by appearing a character in a way that allows it to drink a specific character is an ordinary way that can be easily thought, and the expression of a character in a way that makes it possible to temporarily suspend the function of the character is also an ordinary way of expressing that the character temporarily suspends the function of the character. Therefore, the similarity of the remaining specific expressions except the above part should be compared. In the case of the Plaintiff Game, the expression of a character in the form of eating a protruding and a protruding character from the soil to the above part, while in the case of the Defendant Game, the expression of a protruding and a protruding character is completely different in the form of expressing the character in a way that the character is cut off from a swimming to the above part.

(3) Therefore, in the case of special rules, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s game of this case and the Defendant’s game of this case are substantially similar.

H) The similarity (1) between the game of this case and the game of this case is found in the composition of the game of this case. Finally, some similaritys are found as follows.

(2) However, in the case of a game, the basic elements indicating the characteristics of each phase are the composition of a game screen. In light of the size of a limited smartphone screen and the basic rules that shall basically match the same character with three or more of the same character in each phase, it seems that the game screen composition that can be used to form a phase in consideration of difficulty, unlike the characteristics of each phase, seems to be similar. In fact, in the case of another set - 3- game, the game screen of similar composition can be used. Furthermore, even if the composition of a game screen is similar, even if the target number and frequency are similar, the degree of difficulty can vary by different types. Thus, even if the composition of a game screen is partially similar, it is difficult to see that the plaintiff game of this case and the defendant game of this case are practically similar.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the part of the game rules that overlap between the plaintiff game of this case and the defendant game of this case is not subject to copyright protection, and the specific expression that is subject to copyright protection is not substantially similar, so the defendant game of this case does not infringe the copyright of the plaintiff game of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. Determination as to the unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act and the assertion of tort under the Civil Act

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s game of this case was produced by inserting long experience, know-how, human resources, etc., and the Defendant provided the Plaintiff’s game of this case, which copied new rules, expression forms, etc. of the Plaintiff’s game of this case before entering into the domestic market in full scale, or altered extremely only a part of the Plaintiff’s game of this case. 2) The Defendant’s act constitutes an act of unfair competition under Article 2 subparag. 1(j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and at the same time constitutes tort under the Civil Act, and thus, constitutes tort under the Civil Act, the Defendant’s act constitutes an act of unfair competition or tort as described in the purport of the claim against the Defendant, and thus, sought damages therefrom.

B. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) Whether the Plaintiff’s game of this case constitutes “the outcome made by considerable investment or effort.” Since from September 2012, the Plaintiff started new game development through digital posters, etc. from around around April 2013, the Plaintiff released the Plaintiff’s game as a platform around April 2013, and thereafter released the Plaintiff’s game as a mobile platform around June 10, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s game of this case’s game of this case’s case’s new application of various rules that did not exist in the existing market - 3 - the Plaintiff’s game of this case’s new application of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act’s new rules that did not exist in the current market - the Plaintiff’s efforts to establish new rules and make efforts to regulate the Plaintiff’s game of this case’s invention of this case’s invention of this case’s invention of this case’s invention of this case’s invention of this case’s invention of this case’s invention of this case’s invention of this case’s invention of this case’s invention and its performance.

2) Whether the defendant's act of running the defendant's game of this case constitutes "an act infringing on the economic interests of others by using it without permission for one's own business in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order"

Meanwhile, in addition to the above facts, the Defendant’s act of producing the Plaintiff’s game was considerably identical to the Defendant’s existing game industry, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s act of producing the Plaintiff’s game, including the 3th anniversary of its existing value - the added rules and the 3th additional rules. The above rules were equally applied to the Defendant’s game, ② the Plaintiff’s game was developed on April 2013, and the Defendant’s game was released from the platform. The Defendant’s game was no more than 10 months after the fact that the Plaintiff’s act of producing the Plaintiff’s game was conducted on February 11, 2014, and the Defendant’s act of producing the Plaintiff’s game was no more than the Defendant’s new game industry’s use of the same type as the Plaintiff’s game in light of the following circumstances. However, the Defendant’s act of producing the Plaintiff’s game was no more than the Plaintiff’s use of the same as the Plaintiff’s game industry’s use of the same as the Plaintiff’s use of the Plaintiff’s game.

3) Whether it constitutes a tort under the Civil Act

Furthermore, as long as the above act of the defendant constitutes "an act infringing on the economic interests of others by using it for one's own business without permission in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order, it constitutes a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Code.

C. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) The defendant's assertion that the production of the defendant's game of this case constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and that the defendant's act constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 1 (1) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act, which does not constitute an unfair competition act under Article 2 (1) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act, because it does not constitute an unfair competition act under Article 2 (1) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act, since the defendant's act of producing the defendant's game of this case was made with considerable investment and effort, and that the defendant's new part of the game of this case does not constitute an unfair competition act under Article 2 (1) (3) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act, which does not constitute an unfair competition act under Article 2 (1) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's new part claimed by the defendant does not constitute an unfair competition act under Article 2 (1) (3) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant's act of withdrawing the defendant game of this case and providing it to the general public constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

5. Claim for prohibition and claim for damages

A. Part of the prohibition claim

The defendant's act of running the defendant's game of this case constitutes an unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Thus, pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the defendant is obligated not to directly or indirectly use the game provided in the name of "******* for Kako or use the Internet address of this case directly or indirectly to ordinary users or to publicize, advertise, reproduce, distribute, transmit or spread it.

B. Claim for damages 1) Occurrence of liability for damages

Furthermore, in light of the fact that the defendant has a duty to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the above unfair competitive act under Article 5 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the defendant's attitude and period of the unfair competitive act, and the defendant actively contests that his act does not constitute the unfair competitive act in the lawsuit in this case, it is reasonable to view that it is necessary to claim in advance the payment of damages that

2) Relevant provisions

Article 14-2 (1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "Where a person whose business interest has been infringed due to an unfair competition act claims compensation for damages, if the infringer transfers the goods that caused the unfair competition act, the amount calculated by multiplying the number of business interests by the profit per unit of the person whose business interest has been infringed, shall be deemed the amount of damages suffered by the person whose business interest has been infringed," and Article 14-2 (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "if the person whose business interest has been infringed due to an unfair competition act claims compensation for damages, the person who has infringed the business interest receives the benefit by the act of unfair

The phrase "....."

B) In the instant case:

(1) First, the Plaintiff asserts the calculation of damages under Article 14-2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and on the premise that the average profit rate (26.1%) from 2014 to 2015 can be seen as the Plaintiff’s profit rate of 14 months from 2014 to 2015, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay damages under Article 14-2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act can not be acknowledged as the Plaintiff’s damages amount of 1,712,57, 229, 98 and 87, 85, 864 ( = 1,229,982, 98, 09, 14, 2000 to 204). However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the Plaintiff’s losses amount of digital game from 200 to 14,000 won can not be viewed as the Plaintiff’s losses amount of damages under Article 14(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

C) Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion

In regard to this, the defendant asserts to the purport that the scope of the prohibition obligation or the amount of damages should be determined by taking into account the same or similar parts as above in determining the scope of the plaintiff's game of this case. The defendant's game of this case is an essential and important part of the game as it provides specific game experience to the game user. The defendant's game of this case can be viewed as a whole imitated with the special rules of the plaintiff's game of this case. Thus, in light of the fact that the defendant's game of this case provides almost the same game of this case as the plaintiff's game of this case, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's game of this case is the same as the plaintiff's game of this case in essence. The defendant's game of this case is not a combination of various copyrighted elements such as program works, film works such as literary works, character works such as a scenario, and musical works such as music and sound, etc., and thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's game of this case constitutes an identical or similar part of the total amount of damages should not be considered separately.

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the defendant's damages amounting to KRW 1,168, 114, 291 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 31, 2015 to the date of full payment after the date of the judgment of this case, to October 31, 2015, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 31, 2015.

4. 1. From January to the day on which the Defendant’s act of providing the Defendant’s game of this case to general users is suspended, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 83,436,735 per month ( = 1,168, 114, 291: 14: 14 months, and 14 months, and less than won).

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yang Young-young

Judge Freeboard

The term "game" means a game which is designed to obtain points while being set aside.

2) Article 58 of the Civil Procedure Act (Certification of Authority of Legal Representation, etc.)

(1) The fact having the authority of legal representation or the fact of obtaining the authority for procedural acts shall be attested in writing.

The same shall also apply where a party is selected and replaced in accordance with the provisions of Article 53.

3) Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Act (Status of Representative of an organization including a corporation)

a representative of a corporation, or a representative or manager under section 52, shall be

the provisions of this section shall apply mutatis mutandis.

4) Article 356 of the Civil Procedure Act (Presumption of Authenticity of Official Document)

(1) When a public official is deemed to have prepared in the course of performing his/her duties, delivery of documents shall be made.

It shall be presumed in writing.

(3) The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the document recognized by a foreign public institution.

5) Article 30 of the Notarial Acts of Overseas Diplomatic Missions (Confirmation of Documents, etc.)

(1) A consular official shall affix a document issued by a public official of the country of residence or authenticated by a notary public of the country of residence upon request by a client.

The authenticity and authenticity of seals or signatures and the positions of the public official or notary public may be verified, provided that the host country is

Affiliation to the Convention Abusing the Requirement for Certification for Foreign Public Document (hereinafter referred to as the "Apostille Convention").

In the case of a State, it shall be governed by the Apostille Convention.

6) [Apostille Convention]

The signatory States of this Convention wish to abolish the requirement of certification by diplomatic and consular agencies for foreign official documents.

In this regard, the agreement was adopted with the conclusion of the agreement and agreed on the following provisions.

§ 1.

This Convention shall apply to official documents prepared in the territory of a Contracting State and presented in the territory of another Contracting State.

(2).

For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be regarded as an official document:

(a) authority related to the national court, including documents issued by prosecution agencies and court administrative and enforcement agencies; and

public official, the documents issued by the

(b) Administrative documents;

(c) Official deeds prepared by a notary public;

(d)be attached to deeds signed by private persons, such as entries of the fact of registration, seals on specific dates and authentication of signatures;

public technical document:

However, this Convention shall not apply to:

(a) Documents prepared by diplomatic and consular agencies;

(b) administrative documents directly related to the affairs of commercial or customs offices;

Article 2

Each Contracting State shall be exempt from the certification of documents that shall be submitted in its territory under the application of this Convention.

(i)For the purposes of this Convention, the authentication shall be authentic of the signature of the diplomatic and consular body of the State where the document is to be submitted;

capacity based on which the Signatory of the document is acting and, as the case may be, a stamp, stamp, or stamp on the document;

(1) means only the procedure proving the identity of such person.

Article 3

The authenticity of the signature, the qualifications based on which the Signatory of the document acts and, as the case may be, the document

The only procedure that may be required to verify the identity of the seal or stamp shall be the country in which the document is issued.

issued by the competent authority of this Convention and attaching the certificates set forth in Article 4 of this Convention.

However, the laws, regulations or customs in force in the country in which the document was submitted, or the EH, is a compromise between several Contracting States.

subsection (1) of this section, in the event of exclusion or dissipation of, or exemption from, a certification of such a document

procedures shall not be required.

Article 4

The certificate referred to in the first sentence of Article 3 shall be attached to the document itself or in separate batteries. This certificate shall be attached to this Convention.

shall be consistent with the annexed form.

However, a certificate may be prepared in the official language of the issuing authority. The entries in the certificate shall be in the second language.

any title of this title may be drawn up in the first place. The title "Apoe de Laye 5 octore 1961" shall be French.

The fishing shall be written.

7) On the other hand, the defendant's "Basic Boscop rules" and "Additional Boscop rules" are "scops prior to the plaintiff's game in this case."

The above two games are also asserted to the effect that they are already introduced rules in the Ap Games, 's Spet Ppets' games, etc.

Basically, the establishment that sets up different dates and the special typulation bearing numbers at the bottom of the other day.

The day will appear. However, the so-called ‘swiring game, straight line' game

In principle, a large number of other days, regardless of whether or not, are removed by linking to the greatest number of days;

- 3-Special services which appear in the above game as well as different types of games are different, and special services which appear in the above game are in the plaintiff game of this case.

Unlike others, if you look at another day, it is not arising from the imposition of a width point on the adjoining other day, but it is awarded for non-performance.

Since it is a different thing, it is irrelevant to the ‘Basic Bospact Rules' or ‘Additional Bospact Rules'. In addition, the ‘Espact pact game' is irrelevant to the ‘Basic Bospact Rules'.

In the case of more than four different days, a special different day marked with a number, and the above number is the original of this case.

(2) If the other is removed, the other is not the source of a string, which is added differently from the high game, the other is not the source of a string

In addition, ‘Basic Boners Rules' or ‘Additional Boners Rules', expressed the radius removed by partitions.

C. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

8) In the case of the Plaintiff’s game of this case, “water protection character” is a character.

19) In the case of the Plaintiff Game of this case, the two Dongs are partitions.

10) In the case of the Plaintiff’s game of this case, “water protection character” is a character.

11) In the case of the Plaintiff’s game of this case, “a seed” is “a seed.”

12) In the case of the Plaintiff’s game of this case, “a character” is a character.

13) The MaMRPG (mas)-based online game means a large-scale multi-user online game.

online role playing game ) 에 대응되는 것으로서, 게임방식이 쉽거나 간편해 자투리 시간을 이용해

One set of small online games in which anyone can enjoy easily.

14) 1, 168, 114, 291 = Sales Amount of KRW 2,306,06,071 = Sales Amount of KRW 2,306,071 - Sales expenses and management expenses incurred in relation to the defendant game of this case

1,137,951,780 won