beta
Text
1. The Defendants’ respective Plaintiff, 3,750,000 won, and 2,450,000 won among them, respectively, shall be from January 25, 2010 to 80,000 won.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a copyright holder who has produced 53 points of inserting the inserted in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant copyrighted works”) while working as a model author.
B. The Defendants are married with their husband and wife, and Defendant B is the president of the Russia (E) located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and Defendant C(F) is the business entity of the Daejeon Campus, and operates the following carpets (H) of the “G,” which operates publishing planning business in connection with the EIs Research Institute.
C. Defendant B, from December 2010 to March 201, 201, separately created the Plaintiff column on the E website “galloning price trend” and the Defendants published each of the instant copyrighted works without the Plaintiff’s permission.
In addition, on January 20, 201, the paintings Nos. 15,52, and 53 listed in the attached list were published in the Brogs (J) operated for public relations on January 20, 201 without indicating the creator. On January 20, 201, the E Daejeon Camps recruited and used the Embroster 21 listed in the attached list without indicating the creator, and around that time, the E Institute homepage, wrogs (operator C), and the following mechanisms, and were posted on the E-private teaching institute’s homepage, wrogs, the list Nos. 52 listed in the attached list was used without indicating the creator.
[Then, Blouses, 15, 52, 53] [Blouseers, 52, 53] [Attachment 21] [Attachment 52]] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendants infringed the plaintiff's right of reproduction and distribution of each of the works of this case by allowing the plaintiff to display and download each of the works of this case on the private teaching institute's website without the plaintiff's consent. Of them, in the case of picture 15 and 53, the defendant's right of attribution is infringed.