beta
Text
1. The plaintiff falling under the following among the part concerning the claim for damages in the judgment of the court of first instance.
Reasons
1. Of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance which partly accepted the reasoning of the judgment, the part of “1. Basic Facts”, “2. Plaintiff’s assertion” excluding the claim for prohibition of copyright infringement (No. 6. 3. 4), and “1. b. b. judgment as to claim for damages” and “1. b. b. judgment as to claim for damages”) among the scope of liability for damages, i.e., the part of the judgment of the court of first instance which partly admitted the reasoning of the judgment of first instance
2. Scope of the defendant's liability for damages
A. The court may recognize the substantial amount of damages in consideration of the purport of pleading and the result of examination of evidence, if it is recognized that the damage occurred, but it is difficult to calculate the amount of damages pursuant to Article 125 of the Copyright
(Article 126 of the Copyright Act). According to the above, the Plaintiff suffered damages from infringement of copyright due to unauthorized reproduction of the Defendant’s DNA landscape, etc.
Therefore, it is difficult to calculate the amount of damages that the plaintiff actually suffered, the profits that the defendant actually suffered, or the amount that the plaintiff would normally receive by exercising the copyright. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that this case is a fact that damages occurred but it is difficult to calculate the amount of damages pursuant to Article 125 of the Copyright Act. Accordingly, the amount of damages shall be calculated pursuant to Article 126 of the Copyright
However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s property damages amounting to KRW 60,00,00 is reasonable in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap’s evidence Nos. 26 through 31, Eul’s evidence Nos. 4 through 7 and the purport
① The Plaintiff, while making a lecture using the instant DNA border, etc., distributed the instant DNA border, etc. in return for the registration fee, and did not sell it by any other means.
② The registration fee of the Plaintiff is an amount that includes both the cost of lectures and teaching materials.