1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is the author and the author and the author’s property right of the said work, who created a total of six books of “C” (hereinafter referred to as “instant work”).

At around 2014, the Defendant, without obtaining permission from the Plaintiff, set up an compressed file (hereinafter referred to as “instant electromagnetic file”) in which an image file (e.g., electromagnetic files in which the extension is JPG) in which an identical page of the said novel (e.g., e., electromagnetic files) was collected by using Addy “C” at the Internet file-sharing website (wep address htp:/www.W.com) without obtaining permission from the Plaintiff, was sold after receiving approximately 10 points (per 10 won) per each right.

[Ground of recognition] 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant infringed the plaintiff's property right by the above method. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the plaintiff's damages caused by the above infringement.

The Plaintiff’s claim for property damage within the scope of compensation for damages is that the average of at least 10% of the sales price of the instant copyrighted work is paid at 8,000 won per right per right, as the Plaintiff’s royalty, and thus, when selling a quality of the instant copyrighted work, the profit that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive (i.e., 8,00 won x 6 x 10%) is 4,800 won.

Although the Defendant’s infringement of the author’s property right of this case was 1,000 sales volume of the instant copyrighted work, the Plaintiff claimed only 2,400,000 won (i.e., KRW 4,800 / 500 x 500) as damages.

If such damage is not recognized as above, the amount calculated pursuant to Article 125-2 or 126 of the Copyright Act shall be claimed as compensation for damage.

Judgment

Article 125 of the Copyright Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides for the presumption of damages in consideration of the fact that it is considerably difficult to prove damage in the event of copyright infringement, and Article 126 of the Act provides for the presumption of damages as a whole.