1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the holder of author’s property right of a window and sprink program, which is a computer operation system, and the Defendant is a labor law firm established on April 2, 199 for the purpose of conducting labor dispute mediation, etc.

B. At the principal office on March 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) 18 side of the window and the Lao Program from the Plaintiff on March 26, 2014; and (b) the same year at the Busan Office

7. 25. 25. Each five of the above five of the window and the window are purchased at the source office, two of the computers where the above window program is installed at the end of 2011, and two of the window program at the window office on July 25, 2014, and three of the above window program at the window office on July 25, 2014, and are used for the business of executive officers and employees.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 7, Eul Nos. 1, 13 through 32, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances that the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the Plaintiff’s program after March 26, 2014 in order to avoid the past infringement, which had been subject to an issue regarding copyright infringement by the Plaintiff, around October 2013, it is recognized that the Defendant’s executives and employees illegally reproduced and used the Plaintiff’s program by March 26, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above copyright infringement.

B. We examine the judgment on this, and the fact that the defendant purchased each of the above programs before and after the application for conciliation of this case is as seen above, and the defendant did not dispute that the defendant did not submit or did not submit the data related to the purchase of the program used before and after the purchase.

However, in this case, where the plaintiff did not specifically claim the number of programs used by the defendant's officers and employees or the number of programs used by illegal reproduction, the defendant's officers and employees are prior to March 26, 2014.