logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.25 2018가합533275
손해배상(지)
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 27,336,00 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from April 24, 2017 to January 25, 2019.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The status of the party is a company for the development, production, and sale of a computer program, and is the copyright holder of a DNA computer program (hereinafter “D”). Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant”) is a company engaged in building and engineering work, housing construction work, etc., and Defendant C is an employee in charge of the E road construction site (hereinafter “instant construction site”).

B. The Defendants’ copyright infringement and criminal punishment against the Defendants were charged with a violation of the Copyright Act, which criminal facts that “Defendant C used the instant program at the instant construction site office around April 24, 2017 without the Plaintiff’s permission, and committed an infringement on the Plaintiff’s property right by using it at the eight computers located therein, and that Defendant C, an employee of the Defendant Company, committed such a violation with the said Act.” On February 21, 2018, Defendant C was subject to a summary order issued by the Gwangju District Court’s 200,000 won, and the Defendant Company was issued a fine of KRW 3,00,000, and the Defendant Company was issued a fine of KRW 5,00,000 (Article 727). This became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition as above, Defendant C was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the tort, pursuant to Article 125 of the Copyright Act, since eight program of this case were reproduced without permission of the Plaintiff, the author’s property right holder, and used them for the work of the Defendant Company, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s property right.

Furthermore, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that Defendant C’s act of installing and using the instant program in the eight computers of the instant construction site office constitutes objectively related to the execution of Defendant C’s business.

arrow