손해배상(지)
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. All costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. In addition to supplementing the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following paragraph (2), the part corresponding to the Defendants among the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance (including its attached Form) is the same as the reasons of the judgment of the court of first instance (including its attached Form). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. Parts in height:
(a) To revise “the Plaintiff’s copyright” of 8th 7 pages to “the Plaintiff’s copyright” of “the right of reproduction, public transmission, etc.”
B. Subsequent to the first 10th portion of the Defendants’ “non-Evidence of Evidence,” the following addition is added (as a result of the record, it is recognized that some of the above Defendants have a subsidiary which is a separate legal person having a principal office in the Republic of Korea, but such subsidiary is not deemed to be the principal office, business office, or worker’s address in the Republic of Korea of Korea, unless the subsidiary is a separate legal person.)
C. The following is added to the 10th 13th 13th 13th “Determination on the merits”. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s governing law applicable to the claim for domestic infringement of Defendant Fmerc character A, Epison Pson Pelc, and Oracle Citcercer’s, the Plaintiff, a national of the Republic of Korea, was established in accordance with the U.S. law or the English law and whose principal office is located in the U.S. or the U.K., the part claiming suspension of the infringement and compensation for damages on the ground that the Defendants infringed the Plaintiff’s property right within the territory of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “the part claiming domestic infringement”).
Since foreign elements exist, I examine the applicable law.
The suspension claim on the ground of infringement of intellectual property rights is based on the quasi-real rights of intellectual property rights and corresponding to the claim for exclusion of disturbance in real rights.