beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.12.06 2017나2067811

손해배상(지)

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall be the defendant as to the thesis in the attached Table 1 list.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is in office as a professor of C University Accounting. The Defendant, from around 2003 to February 2005, was in office as a professor at D University after obtaining a doctorate from the Plaintiff’s instruction and served as a professor at D University, and is currently in office as a professor of E University Business Management Department.

B. The draft of the thesis in the attached Table 1 List Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “the draft of this case No. 1”) (hereinafter “the draft of this case”). A evidence No. 4-1 was drafted around October 2005, and the author and the Defendant were written.

The first thesis (No. 4-2) of this case, which supplemented the first thesis of this case, was published on December 2006 in No. 15 title G 4 of the FSchool Conference, with the plaintiff and the defendant as co-owner around December 2006.

From August 2006 to December 201, 2010, the Defendant drafted and published each thesis listed in attached Tables 1 to 5.

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 1-1 through 5 thesis” in sequence. Gap evidence 12-1 to 5).

Attached Form

Done No. 3 and No. 4 List Nos. 1 of the Plaintiff’s paper written out, from around 2004 to around 2004, the Plaintiff developed an empirical analysis model (statistical analysis model) to analyze the content of “Ohlson Model,” which is determined by accounting variables, such as excess profit during the previous period, and other information not reflected in accounting variables.” In relation to the empirical study, “the future excess profit ratio of listed companies in Korea has a relationship between the investment rate of fixed operating assets in the current and past four years.” On May 2005, the Plaintiff extracted the statistical analysis of the paper necessary to prove the above temporary installation, namely, the Plaintiff’s work of collecting each accounting data from HJ’s J data database provided by H, and then using the statistical program SAS Aatson Model.