logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.09 2015가합537412
손해배상(지)
Text

1. The defendant shall not reproduce, transmit, perform, or exhibit (attached Form 1) and each work to be indicated.

2...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff as the party to the status of "D" (the Internet site is referred to as "D") is to take a sapshot photograph with the trade name of "D" (the Internet site is referred to as "E), and to operate a photographic steis (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's steis") that mainly engages in the business, such as taking pictures that can fluorize natural action or steing, and selling a crime. The defendant is to operate a photograph steis (hereinafter referred to as "defendantis") with the trade name of "F (the Internet site is "C")" (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant's steis").

B. The Plaintiff, including the promotion of partnership relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, was proposed to establish partnership relationship with the Defendant around 2012, and accepted this, and the Plaintiff taken photographs of Nos. 5 and 39 (hereinafter “the second photograph of this case”) produced by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the second photograph of this case”).

Since then, negotiations for promoting the partnership relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant negotiations”) were interrupted due to differences in the position between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

C. The Defendant’s unauthorized use of the instant pictures 1) Around 2012, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to appear in partnership with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s website (attached Form 1) Nos. 1 through 4 (hereinafter “the instant pictures”) with the Plaintiff’s consent.

[Attachment 1] The photograph of this case was published for the purpose of advertising (hereinafter referred to as “instant photograph”).

(2) Even after the conclusion of the instant negotiations, the Defendant’s employees posted the instant photograph No. 1 on the Defendant’s website. (2) The Defendant’s employees engaged in the act of business by expressing the Defendant’s crime and making a part of the clients who wish to purchase the instant dice photograph after the conclusion of the instant negotiations.

arrow