A. At around August 2003, the Defendant posted five pictures (name of products: F, G, H, I, J, and hereinafter the above five pictures combined with the name of products: F, H, I, J, and hereinafter the above five pictures) copyright to the Plaintiff (E) on the company homepage (D) of the trade name “C” it operates.

(The plaintiff asserted that the defendant posted the above picture from around 2002, but it is not enough to recognize the above assertion as a result of Gap evidence No. 2, and there is no other evidence.

In the website stated in the preceding paragraph, the character of the instant picture is connected to K, which is a web (electronic magazine) published by the Defendant, and the said web page also posted the said picture.

C. The Defendant did not obtain the Plaintiff’s consent on the use of the instant pictures, such as paragraphs A and B. D.

Although the Defendant closed the company described in the paragraph (a) around June 9, 2006, the Defendant did not make it impossible for other persons to view the instant pictures by means of deleting the instant pictures from the website or web page until June 30, 2012, or closing the Internet site of the said website or web page.

E. The provisions of the Copyright Act relating to this case are as follows:

Article 35-3 (Fair Use of Works) (1) Other than cases of Articles 23 through 35-2 and 101-3 through 101-5, where a person does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author without conflicting with normal exploitation methods of works, he/she may exploit the works for news report, criticism, education, research, etc.

(2) The following matters shall be considered in determining whether an act of using works, etc. falls under paragraph (1):

1. Purposes and characteristics of use, such as for-profit or non-profit;

2. Categories and uses of the works;

3. Proportions of used parts in the entire works, etc. and their importance;

4. The use of works, etc. shall affect the current or potential market or value of such works, etc.