1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Determination

A. 1) The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the cause of copyright infringement is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the scope of liability for damages is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 125(2) of the Plaintiff’s alleged Copyright Act provides, “When an author’s property right holder, etc. claims compensation from a person who has intentionally or negligently infringed his/her right, he/she may claim the amount equivalent to the amount which he/she would normally be entitled to receive by exercising his/her right as the amount of damages suffered by the author’s property right holder, etc.” Thus, when the Defendant permits the manufacture, import, and sale of character products using C for profit-making purposes, the amount equivalent to the amount which he/she would normally receive is equivalent to KRW 50 million in light of the contract concluded between the Plaintiff and other companies. Therefore, the amount is presumed to be the Plaintiff’s damages.

In addition, according to Article 125-2 (1) of the Copyright Act, an author's property right holder, etc. may claim a reasonable amount not exceeding KRW 50 million for each work, etc. whose right has been infringed on intentionally or negligently for the purpose of profit-making in lieu of the actual amount of damages or the amount of damages determined pursuant to Article 125 or 126 before the conclusion of the fact-finding hearing for the person who has infringed on the right

"C" provides that, although it is a representative of large-scale art and cinematographic works known to most citizens, the defendant intentionally uses it for profit.