logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.07.16 2013가단83632
저작권침해로 인한 손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 15,000,000 with respect thereto to the Plaintiff and the period from November 1, 2013 to July 16, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a legal entity that operates Internet women-class shopping mall D, and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a legal entity that operates Internet women-class shopping mall E, and Defendant C is the representative director of the Defendant Company.

B. Around August 29, 2013, G, the representative director of the Plaintiff, directly produced and operated the Plaintiff’s web site (H) franchise (H) franchise (through search engines or advertisements) (the web page that is initially viewed by the customer who connects the relevant web site via search engines or advertisements). However, the Plaintiff discovered that dial-a-the-job, the Defendant Company’s web site (I) franchise is similar to that of the Plaintiff’s franchise, and requested the Plaintiff to secure and take technical measures to prevent infringement of evidence by sending out written statements to the Nonparty Company on August 30, 2013. The Plaintiff and the Defendant Company’s shopping mall Web site all managed both the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company’s shopping mall Web site (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute; entries and images of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers if there is a number), witness G, and J; the testimony of this court; the result of each fact inquiry to the non-party company of this court; the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendants infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright by reproducing the Plaintiff’s franchise code as it is and using it in Defendant Company’s franchise page.

B) Using the franchise code produced by the Plaintiff as it is, the Defendants used the image server that the Plaintiff used at its own expense as it is, and without any authority, infringed on another’s information and communications network. The Defendants then copied the above items image and then copied it to their servers.

arrow