1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 20, 2010, the Plaintiff completed copyright registration with the Korea Copyright Commission on the design of a railing as stated in the attached Form 1 drawing (hereinafter “instant copyrighted work”).

B. In around February 28, 2013, the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for the construction of bridge railing (hereinafter “instant construction”) from Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd., and received the instant railing from the said company upon request for a railing supply from the said company, and installed the instant railing on the bridge around February 28, 2013.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5, images, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is presumed to have infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright by installing the rail of this case manufactured by the Defendant as the same design as the instant copyrighted work, and the Defendant’s negligence regarding the Defendant’s copyright infringement. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 8,334,00, which is the amount equivalent to the profit accrued from the construction of the instant rail due to

B. Determination 1) In order to establish an infringement of the right of reproduction or the right to prepare secondary copyrighted works protected under the Copyright Act, it should be recognized that the copyrighted work is produced based on an existing copyrighted work claimed that the copyrighted work is infringed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da10813, Oct. 24, 2000; 2005Da35707, Dec. 13, 2007). Furthermore, in order to compensate for damages due to copyright infringement, the elements for establishing tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, such as the actor’s intentional act or negligence, should be satisfied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da37491, Sept. 25, 201). Accordingly, the relationship can be presumed to have been recognized where the accessibility of the existing copyrighted work, and the similarity between the copyrighted work and the existing copyrighted work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da35707, Dec. 13, 2007).