logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.06 2014나47848
손해배상(지)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, at around May 201, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, since the Defendant’s infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright is either a dispute between the parties, or the Plaintiff’s copyright is recognized by adding up the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments to the entries or videos in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, since it is recognized that there is no dispute between the parties, or that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages arising therefrom, since the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. The plaintiff's assertion is paid 10% of the cartoon sales price as a discount. The sales price of the above cartoons (based on a book) is an average of 4,200 won per unit, and sales volume per unit of infringement by the defendant at least 10,000 books. The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff at least 8,400,000 won (=420 won (=4,200 won) x 10 x 2,000 won) for property damage as compensation for mental damage.

B. On the other hand, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to find that the amount of the plaintiff's lost income reaches 8,400,000 won due to the defendant's infringement, and there is no other evidence to find it otherwise. It is difficult for the defendant to calculate the profit gained by the act of infringement or the amount that the plaintiff would normally receive by the act of the above copyright. Thus, all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case, namely, that the defendant was a high school student at the time of the above infringement, that the defendant was a high school student at the time of the above infringement, that the amount of the cartoons contained in the file that the defendant was 10 books, but the amount of the cartoons contained in the defendant's work is limited to 10 books, but the plaintiff was a high class classic cartoon, including the cartoons

arrow