beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from March 2, 2015 to May 25, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is taking advantage of the U.S. § 204(1) of the U.S. Act (hereinafter “the instant U.S. Act”) on the Prevention and Control of Oil from O.S. (hereinafter “the instant U.S. Act”), and the Defendant was equipped with the U.S. Act from the Plaintiff.
B. On February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff obtained a license for the use of each of the instant copyrighted works from G with the author’s property rights to “C”, “D”, “E”, and “F” (hereinafter “each of the instant copyrighted works”) and acquired from G the entire civil and criminal rights to each of the instant copyrighted works and rights to each of the instant copyrighted works, and registered the author’s property rights to each of the instant copyrighted works with the Korea Copyright Commission on March 16, 2015.
C. From March 2, 2015 to June 8, 2015, the Defendant demoted the Oil Prevention and Control Act at H from March 2, 2015, and divided the printed matters produced by extracting some of the instant copyrighted works into students.
From March 2, 2015 to June 8, 2015, the Defendant prepared a printed article produced by arbitrarily extracting the lecture materials of the Act on the Protection and Management of Oils, which the Plaintiff had author’s property rights, and distributed them to students, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s copyright.
‘A summary order' has been issued with the content of the summary order, and the summary order has been finalized as it is.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1 through 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. In light of the above basic facts, it is appropriate to determine that the defendant infringed the plaintiff's property right to each of the works of this case.
B. On March 16, 2015, after the commencement of the Defendant’s lecture, the Defendant registered the author’s property right to each of the instant works, and the Plaintiff violated the Copyright Act after the completion of the Defendant’s lecture.