beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 39,000,000 with respect thereto to the Plaintiff and the period from December 5, 2016 to July 27, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The status of the party is the copyright holder of D, a computer program used for the business of shooting, printing, drawing, structural interpretation, industrial design, etc. (current is referred to as "E"; hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Company"), Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Company") is a company engaged in the development, manufacture, sale, etc. of bathing goods, and Defendant C is the representative director of the Defendant Company.
B. Defendant C’s copyright infringement and criminal punishment 1) Defendant C’s copyright infringement and criminal punishment on December 2014, 2014, at the Kimpo-si Office of the Defendant Company F located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, the computer program of the Plaintiff’s copyright without the Plaintiff’s consent (hereinafter “the instant program”).
(2) On December 23, 2016, Defendant C was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Decision 2016 High Court Decision 201Da14924) on December 23, 2016, and the said summary order became final and conclusive as it is, on the grounds that Defendant C had committed a violation of the Copyright Act, by installing and using the program of this case after reproduction, and thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s property right.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 4 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The summary of the cause of the claim is that Defendant C, the representative director of the Defendant Company, has infringed on the Plaintiff’s property right by reproducing and installing the instant program on the computers of the Defendant Company’s office without the Plaintiff’s consent. As such, Defendant C is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the tort pursuant to Article 125 of the Copyright Act. The Defendant C, the representative director of the Defendant Company, in accordance with Articles 389(3) and 2