1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff against the defendant B, who is equivalent to the amount ordered below.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of marketing and development of the engineering software, which has the copyright of the E program (hereinafter “instant program”), and the Defendant Company is a corporation that manufactures and sells air-conditioning equipment. Defendant C is the former representative director of the Defendant Company, and Defendant D is all employees of the Defendant Company.

B. Around June 15, 2016, Defendant D copied one of the instant programs on his own computer installed in the Defendant Company’s office without the Plaintiff’s permission, and such fact was discovered by an investigative agency on October 10, 2016.

C. Defendant D was issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 due to the crime committed in violation of the aforementioned Copyright Act, and the said order was finalized on January 13, 2017.

(C) On November 1, 2016, the Prosecutor issued a non-prosecution disposition on the charge of violating the Copyright Act by Defendant Company and Defendant C. On the other hand, the Prosecutor issued a non-prosecution disposition on November 1, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 2 and 14 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant D, an employee of the Defendant Company, violated the Plaintiff’s copyright by illegally reproducing the file of the instant program installation to the Defendant Company’s business computer without the Plaintiff’s permission. Defendant D, as an infringer of copyright, is the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company, as an employer of Defendant D, is jointly liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages.

B. Although Defendant C, as the representative director of the Defendant Company, has a duty to take overall control of the business affairs of the Defendant Company and to prevent the unlawful reproduction of the employee’s program, he was negligent in neglecting the illegal act of Defendant D, and thus, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant D to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damage.