용역비
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendant shall make an advertisement design in attached Form.
1. The plaintiff asserts that the decision-making on the claim for the payment of the model shooting concept is that the defendant delivered the model shooting concept to the defendant and agreed to receive two million won of the price.
In this regard, there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff prepared and delivered a proposal to the defendant for the purpose of requesting the plaintiff to prepare a proposal for the video advertising by employees C, etc. in charge of publicity of B Hospital, and the fact that the plaintiff prepared and delivered a proposal for the second-class model photographing concept to the defendant. However, with respect to whether the plaintiff received two million won or more, it is not sufficient to recognize the above only the statement of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, 13, and 26, and the voice of evidence Nos. 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above argument of the
2. Determination on prohibition of infringement of copyright and claim for damages
A. On October 2013, the Defendant requested the production of outdoor advertisements with a size of 20 x 10 m from the staff in charge of B hospital around early 2013, and subcontracted the design part to the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff created a draft of outdoor advertising design in the time of the design as requested by the Plaintiff in the form of two images, such as the attached advertising design, and delivered it to the Defendant around October 27, 2013, and delivered each amendment to the Defendant on November 18, 2013, December 11, 2013, and December 20 of the same month.
3) However, the disputes arise between the prime and the Defendant over the subcontract price, and the Plaintiff asserted the reversal of the contract, and did not deliver the original electromagnetic day, which was string the city to the Defendant in compliance with the size of outdoor advertisements. 4) The Defendant delivered the cream day received from the Plaintiff to B hospital staff without obtaining the Plaintiff’s permission during the period from December 20, 2013 to January 22, 2014. The said staff members, etc. requested the output company to output it and attach it to the output company, and used it as an advertisement, or as an Internet screen.
[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.