1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from August 8, 2015 to August 18, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating the website (D) of the name “D”, while running the leisure industry, such as accommodation, routing, 4-wheeled, and stuba, in Gangwon-do Iron-gun C. The Defendant is a person operating B-C, while running the accommodation business with the trade name “F” in Gangwon-gu Iron-gun E. The Defendant is a person operating B-G.

B. The Plaintiff posted the contents of the Plaintiff’s website, as a result of introducing and advertising the said D website’s leisure business, routing, four-wheeled, and sobane game, on which the Plaintiff posted the Plaintiff’s text, pictures, and pictures explaining the routing’s license, the program of using the routture, the program of using the routture, the program of using the routture, the program of using the 4-wheeled Games, and the program of using the 4-wheeled games.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant notices”) C.

On August 7, 2015, the Defendant sent the instant bulletin to the Plaintiff’s website and copied the instant bulletin, and posted it as is on the block that he/she operated, but deleted it on March 2016, after the instant lawsuit was instituted.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 3-1 through 6, Gap evidence 4-1 through 8, Gap evidence 5-1 through 14, Gap evidence 6-1 through 33, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged as above, it is reasonable to view that the notice of this case constitutes a work protected under the Copyright Act. The Defendant’s act of reproducing the notice of this case without the Plaintiff’s permission, who is the copyright holder of the notice of this case, and posting it on his tables constitutes infringement of author’s property right, such as the Plaintiff’s right of reproduction, etc. of the said work

The defendant asserts that the copyright of the notice of this case is in H, but it is possible to reverse the facts acknowledged earlier.