The case holding that Eul's act of selling the product height of Eul's program does not constitute an infringement of author's property rights, such as the right of reproduction, etc. on Gap's computer operation program, but Eul sold the product key of Gap's computer operation program to general consumers who are not authorized to use the product key of Gap's company's computer operation program, and buyer's act of installing Gap's computer operation program using the product key and using it with certification of the product key is used by a non-authorized person, and eventually, buyer's act of using the product key constitutes an infringement of author's property rights, such as the right of reproduction, etc. on Gap's computer operation program, and it constitutes aiding and abetting the infringement of author's property rights, and Eul's above act of selling the product key constitutes aiding and abetting the infringement of author's property rights, under Article 123 (1) of the Copyright Act.

November 18, 2020

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The Plaintiff is a company that develops and sells computer programs, various peripheral devices, etc., and is the holder of author’s property right of Winows 10 program, a computer operation system (hereinafter “instant program”).

B. The Plaintiff provided a product key for the use of the instant program to the university students who have joined the so-called dlimping program for the purpose of learning, and allowed the use of the instant program to the above university students.

C. The Defendant, a person engaged in a mail order business with the trade name of ○○○○, etc., sells products key to the university students who participated in the dlimf program to the Plaintiff in online shopping mall, such as diskettes and couple, to general consumers.

D. The arm’s length price of the instant program package is KRW 170,000. Meanwhile, the Defendant sold the product key of the instant program at the price of KRW 3,300 to KRW 27,000 in online shopping mall.

E. When a consumer purchases a product key, the defendant shall transmit the product key, method of installation, matters of attention, etc. to the consumer’s e-mail account as follows:

The product code contained in the main sentence*******-************ installed on the Microfet website. At the same time, certification on two or more PCs is a breach of license. At the same time, refund may take place at the same time, and in this case, the frequent cancellation of certification (at least three months of maintenance) may be the cause of kibs. For this reason, liquor tax should be used only at the time of the change. The phrases that have been already registered at another nibs, not at the time of registration, but at the time of the change, at the time of the purchase of the Nafet, and at the same time, at the time of the change (at least three months of acquisition) the character of the Republic of Korea (at the time of the change, on the 4th day of the purchase of the Nafet) and the character of the Republic of Korea (at the time of the change, on the first day of the purchase of the Gafet, the character of the Gafet and the first day of the 4th day.

F. On January 20, 2017, the original branch of the Chuncheon District Court recognized the following criminal facts as a violation of the Copyright Act, and issued a summary order sentencing a fine of one million won to the Defendant. The said summary order was finalized on March 1, 2017.

The Defendant, included in the main text, was a person attending △△ University from May 27, 2016 to July 4, 2016, when distributing and selling computer software in the name of “○○○○○○○○○” (hereinafter omitted), and the Defendant already imported the products of DaVD, packaging, log, and Winows 7 which were artificially forged and copied to the COA level, and sold them for KRW 242,50,50 on May 27, 2016, and sold them to KRW 44,90,00,000, which was forged on June 10, 2016, and thereby infringed on the 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000,00,00,00,00,00.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8, 12, and 13 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether author's property right has been infringed

A. Computer program scenario number is a technical protective measure, which is a means to confirm whether a computer program has the authority to install or use a computer program. The instruction to proceed to a Slice when a certain format is input, and merely the data that is processed by the program with the expression of an order when a computer program is expressed, and the reproduction or distribution of a Slice number itself does not constitute the publication, reproduction, alteration, translation, distribution, publication, or transmission of a computer program, and it cannot be concluded that the aforementioned act alone infringed a computer program copyright. However, if a group copied a program by using a reproduced or distributed Slice number and the act is punished as an act infringing a computer program copyright, the reproduction or distribution of a Slice number can be an act facilitating the above act and aiding and abetting the program copyright infringement (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2900, Jun. 28, 2002, etc.).

Article 46 of the Copyright Act provides that “The author of author’s property right may allow another person to exploit his/her work. The person who has obtained such permission may exploit the work within the extent of the method and conditions so permitted. The right to exploit the work by such permission may not be transferred to a third person without the consent of the author’s property right.” Therefore, a third person who has not been permitted by the author to exploit the work may not reproduce the work, and even if he/she has obtained such permission, he/she may exploit it only within the extent of the method and conditions so authorized, and may not transfer to a third person the right to exploit the work without the consent of the author’s property right.

B. The Defendant’s sales of the product key of the instant program, which is not the instant program, does not constitute an infringement of author’s property rights, such as the right of reproduction, regarding the instant program. However, the Defendant sold the product key of the instant program to general consumers who are not authorized to use the program, and the buyer installed the instant program using the said product key and uses it with the certification of good. Ultimately, the buyer’s use of the work constitutes an infringement of author’s property rights, such as the right of reproduction, etc. regarding the instant program, and the Defendant’s sales of the said product key was easy by the buyer to commit the infringement of author’s property rights, and thus, constitutes aiding and abetting the infringement of author’s property rights.

C. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff has free permission to use the program of this case on the grounds that any person can freely distribute the installation files of the program of this case without compensation and no impediment exists to the installation without entering the product key.

According to Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, a link is posted on the plaintiff's web site that can download the installation file of the program of this case, and any person can download the installation file of the program of this case through the above link, and even if a product key is not entered in the process of installation, the program installation can be allowed even if the product key is not entered. However, according to the above evidence and the whole purport of oral arguments, the plaintiff's screen provided as the program download of this case shall be first secured "To start up, it shall be able to download and implement the media creation tool." After that, if a product key is not entered in the process of installation of the program of this case, it is also recognized that the Plaintiff's web site has the stage of obtaining product authentication through the product key after the completion of installation.

Whether the act of reproduction and use of the instant program is legitimate or not should be determined on the basis of whether such act is technically feasible, but rather on the basis of whether the Plaintiff was authorized to use the instant program. Even though the Plaintiff did not request the certification of good or confirm the existence of the license to use the instant program before installing the instant program, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff expressed an intent to allow the general use of the instant program solely for that reason. Moreover, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have freely authorized the use solely on the fact that the installation file was provided through the Plaintiff’s website or that it was possible to install the instant program without a product key input. In light of the language of the Plaintiff’s screen screen provision, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s installation process was planned by the user or the Plaintiff who wants to use the instant program before purchasing the instant program from the user or the Plaintiff, and to allow the installation of the program within such limited scope. There is no evidence to find otherwise by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff had obtained the license to use the instant product from the Defendant. The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Obligation to suspend the act of infringement;

The Defendant’s act of selling the instant program product key in the online shopping mall constitutes aiding and abetting the Plaintiff’s infringement of author’s property rights on the instant program. As such, the Defendant is obligated not to sell, distribute, or have a third party sell and distribute, the product key of the instant program and product key pursuant to Article 123(1) of the Copyright Act.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Doo-man (Presiding Judge) No. 554