Law Firm Lplus et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Lee-soo

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The Plaintiff is a broadcasting business entity and the copyright holder of C channel broadcasting program, whose main purpose is to broadcast programs.

B. Around 2011, the Defendant received broadcasting programs sent by domestic broadcasting business entities, including the Plaintiff, through a 'D’ satellite broadcasting, and immediately downloaded by computers, and then sent real-time to the citizens living in China, Indonesia, etc. via the Internet, by the so-called "OT method", which provides video content using the Internet network that is not limited to specific network business entities).

The Defendant planned to provide illegal pay broadcast service. From around 2011 to February 2019, the Defendant installed the antenna, distribution machine, computer, Internet, etc. of D satellite broadcast reception in China and operated the aforementioned method of illegal pay broadcast service in the trade name, “E.” From June 2018 to February 2019. The Defendant also provided illegal pay broadcast service in the same manner as in Korea. The Defendant paid fees to F from June 2015 to February 2019, the Defendant installed and operated a computer, distribution machine, etc. to send high quality broadcasting of E in the F’s office located in Ansan-si from August 2018 to February 2019.

C. From September 15, 2011 to November 15, 2018, the Defendant sent a broadcast by the said means as above, and acquired criminal proceeds by receiving KRW 2,00,610,791 from overseas Koreans.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1-4 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

According to the above facts, since the defendant infringed the plaintiff's author's property right, it is obligated to pay as damages the amount equivalent to the amount which the plaintiff would normally receive from the plaintiff by exercising his right pursuant to Article 125 (2) of the Copyright Act.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 7 and the entire argument, around August 31, 2018, the plaintiff has been maintained until now by entering into a contract for the supply of a program with "G company of New Zealand" and the plaintiff's broadcasting program only within New Zealand area, and the plaintiff is receiving US US US US US US US US US US US US US 4,000 according to the contract. Accordingly, if the plaintiff permitted the defendant to broadcast program of the plaintiff's broadcasting program, the amount is presumed to have been paid at least US US US US US 4,00. As such, it can be deemed to be reasonable for the plaintiff to receive it in the exercise of the plaintiff's author's property right against the defendant. Based on this amount, the defendant calculated damages from September 201 to February 2019 for the period of infringing the plaintiff's property right on the plaintiff's broadcasting program as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 20 million won of the above damages and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from June 12, 2019 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the service of the original copy of the payment order of this case.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.