1. The Defendants’ respective KRW 100,000 per annum from May 24, 2017 to August 24, 2018, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's basic fact is a author who has drawn up approximately approximately 18 Monopoly 1997 in the name of "T" and published the novel, and registered each copyright with the Korea Copyright Commission on U.S.'s copyrighted works.

The Defendants posted part of the Plaintiff’s novels on the Internet website without the Plaintiff’s permission throughout the period before and after the Plaintiff’s registration of each copyright, thereby allowing many and unspecified persons to download it.

As to this, the Defendants received a disposition of suspending or rejecting the indictment from an investigative agency.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the whole documentary evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings (part of the defendants are deemed as confessions)

2. Defendant F asserts that the instant lawsuit did not satisfy the requirements for co-litigation, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

Article 65 (Requisite for Co-Litigation) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “In case where the rights or obligations forming the object of lawsuit are common to many persons, or are generated by the same factual or legal causes, such many persons may join in the lawsuit as co-litigants. The same shall also apply in case where the rights or obligations forming the object of lawsuit are of the same kind, and are generated by the same kind of factual or legal causes.

This case is permitted in cases falling under the latter part of this case.

Defendant F’s assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The Defendants in charge of liability for damages are recognized as having opened each of the novels in this case, which the Plaintiff had copyright, on the Internet site without the Plaintiff’s permission.

Therefore, the defendants shall be deemed to have infringed on the plaintiff's copyright (right of reproduction, etc.) regarding each of the novels in this case, and the defendants shall be liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff.

B. Article 125(2) of the Copyright Act provides that “The author’s property right holder shall be liable for damages.”