beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 143,360,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from January 17, 2019 to May 22, 2019.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a copyright holder of D, E, F, G, H, and I (hereinafter “J Program”) who is engaged in the business of developing and selling computer programs and is a manufacturer’s product design.
Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company whose main purpose is the safety inspection and diagnosis of public structures, and Defendant C is the internal director of the Defendant Company.
B. As a result of the control of illegal reproduction of computer programs conducted on January 17, 2019 against the Defendant Company, it was confirmed that the total of 28 J Programs (D 1, E 1, F 18, G5, H2, H2, 1, and 1 (hereinafter “each program of this case”) were reproduced and installed on the Defendant Company’s computer without permission.
1. Although Defendant C, who is a director of Defendant C at the seat of the Defendant Company, was aware of the fact that the person who acquired the reproduction of the program made in violation of the copyright of the program, was not an act of using it for business purpose, Defendant C infringed upon the copyright by using it for business purpose, even though the person who acquired the reproduction of the program made in violation of the copyright of the program.
2. Defendant C, who is an employee of Defendant C at the time and place of the above 1.1.m., committed the above violation in relation to the duties of Defendant C.
C. On June 27, 2019, the Defendants received a summary order of KRW 10 million as a crime of violating the Copyright Act regarding the following criminal facts by Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2019 High Court Decision 4726, which became final and conclusive on July 30, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 6, 7 evidence, Eul's 6, 7 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the existence of power of attorney
A. The plaintiff's attorney's assertion to prove his/her power of attorney.