logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.02.07 2018가단229642
손해배상(저)
Text

1. The Defendants each Plaintiff KRW 200,000 and each of them on February 2020 as indicated in the separate sheet by each Defendant.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s cause of the instant claim is as shown in the separate sheet, and there is no dispute between the parties as to the establishment of tort except for the claim as to the amount of damages, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as set forth in the evidence Nos. 1 and 4

2. As to the amount of damages that the Defendants are liable, Article 125(2) of the Copyright Act provides that “In the event an author’s property right holder, etc. claims compensation against a person who has intentionally or negligently infringed his/her right, the amount equivalent to the amount ordinarily entitled to such damages may be claimed as the amount of damages suffered by the author’s property right holder, etc. in the course of the infringement.” Article 125-2(1) of the Copyright Act provides that “The author’s property right holder, etc. may claim compensation for damages within the extent of 10,000 won (50,000 won in the case of intentional infringement of his/her right for profit) for each work, etc. whose infringement occurred in lieu of the actual amount of damages or the amount of damages determined pursuant to Article 125 or 126 before the conclusion

In addition, Article 126 of the Copyright Act provides that "the court may recognize a reasonable amount of damages in consideration of the purpose of pleading and the result of examination of evidence when it is difficult to calculate the amount of damages pursuant to the provisions of Article 125, although it is found that

However, there is no submission of particular data on how much the Plaintiff’s imports decrease due to each infringement of this case, most novels among the Plaintiff’s copyrighted works whose copyright was infringed by the Defendants appear to have been published for a long time, and there is no evidence showing that the Defendants committed each infringement of this case for profit-making purposes.

arrow