1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 19, 2016 to November 30, 2016.

1. Basic facts (i) The Plaintiff, from around 2004, opened and operated a shopping mall website (C) for ornamental fish and raising goods, directly photographs of Korean civil body body and heat-to-door, posted them on the said website, and sells or lends for a fee the photographs owned by him/her through the said website (e.g., image shop) in addition to selling ornamental language, etc.

B. On April 27, 2012, the Defendant, while working in the office of licensed real estate agents located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, operated the D’s camera and Blogs, etc., posted the Plaintiff’s photographic work (hereinafter “instant photographic work”) on the Plaintiff’s website without permission, and then posted it on the said camera (Category E) and Blogs (Category F) and then sent it to the Defendant’s camera and Blogs (Category F) at the Internet search site.

Article 22(1) of the Copyright Act provides that “The Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won on April 15, 2015, and shall be punished by a fine of one million won on or from April 27, 2012 to August 2014, and shall be punished by a fine of one million won on or before the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court on the violation of the Copyright Act.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry and video of Gap's 1 through 9 (including virtual number), and the purport of whole pleading

2. The photographic work that created the liability for damages constitutes a copyrighted work protected under the Copyright Act, in which the identity and creativity of the photographer are recognized in the process of selecting the body of body, setting a tool, controlling light direction and quantity, setting a camera angle, speed of exhauster, giving the opportunity to exhauster, other methods of photographing, phenomena, and painting (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da44542, Dec. 23, 2010). According to the aforementioned evidence, the photographic work of this case is in its image.