1. The defendant corporation A and B jointly share the amount of KRW 15010,000, and the defendant C are above.

In fact, the premise of the premise is that the Plaintiff Oitas C&C (hereinafter “Plaintiff Oitas”) is an AstruCAD 2010, AstruCAD 2011, AutoCAD 2013, and Plaintiff L&C 2013 (hereinafter “Plaintiff LitS”), respectively, a copyright holder of an Astys 14.0.

Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing information and communications devices, automation equipment, and components; Defendant B is the representative director of the Defendant Company; Defendant C is a person who retired while serving as an employee of the Defendant Company.

On June 24, 2014, the control of illegal copying of computer programs was conducted against the defendant company.

At the time, there were more than 10 computers in the research institutes of the Defendant Company, among which, among which, the computers used by the Defendant C used by the Defendant C, the AutCAD 2013 and the Ansys 14.0 (total sys) and green files to implement them (the files enabling the use of illegally reproduced programs by nullifying technological protection measures of the program), PTCreo 2.x, and the two computers used by other employees, respectively, installed AutaD 2010 and AutaCAD 201.

The defendant company purchased two LT 2, AutaCAD 200 LT 2, AutaCAD 2005 LT 2, and used them for business.

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 11 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness D's testimony, the overall purport of the pleading, and the plaintiff Oralk's claim, the above fact-finding acknowledged that the defendant C, an employee of the defendant company, infringed the right of reproduction among the author's property rights of the plaintiff Oralk's above programs by reproducing AutCAD 2013, and other employees of the defendant company, installed AutCAD 2010, AutCAD 201 program.

Therefore, Defendant C has a duty to compensate the Plaintiff Oralk for damages caused by an intentional tort.

Although it is unclear whether Defendant B directly instructed the above employees, including Defendant C, to commit the above illegal acts, the Defendant.