1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Plaintiff is entitled to the title “The Enomistist” (hereinafter “instant title”).

) The main implications of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s main sites”) are as follows:

The English legal entity publishing the Plaintiff’s weekly address is widely known in the Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff takes over the copyright from the authors of the writing published in the Plaintiff’s weekly address, and managing and using the copyrighted works so that they may, in principle, pay the Plaintiff a prescribed fee and obtain permission for the use of copyrighted works from the Plaintiff. (ii) Defendant B is the representative director of Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Private Teaching Institutes”) who operates the private teaching institute, produces teaching materials, and sells copyrighted materials. (iii) Defendant C is the employee of Defendant Private Teaching Institutes in charge of the production of teaching materials.

B. Defendant B’s production and distribution of the instant teaching materials (i) had Defendant C produce English teaching materials using articles recorded in the Plaintiff’s daytime while operating the Defendant Private Teaching Institutes. (ii) The Defendant Private Teaching Institutes published the English teaching materials (a list is the same as attached Table 1; hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant teaching materials”), which were reproduced by foreigners, who were recorded in the Plaintiff’s daytime from around 2009 to 2012, without obtaining the Plaintiff’s permission to use the materials, and sold or distributed them to the students of the Defendant Private Teaching Institutes, etc. using the instant teaching materials.

C. The Plaintiff’s criminal complaint, etc. 1) The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants on the grounds that the Defendants infringed their copyright by reproducing his/her work without permission and producing teaching materials. 2) Defendant Private Institutes, Defendant C, and the Plaintiff’s permission to use the copyrighted work on July 26, 2013.