beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment ordering the payment of the Plaintiff C&C exceeds the following amount.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Plaintiff’s status as a party is pro-Engineer Wil 5.0 (hereinafter “pro- 5.0”). The program was changed to the present Creo Program, and is the copyright holder of the Creo Program (hereinafter “Creo Program”).
Plaintiff
LAS is a copyright holder of “Mas well-being14.0 (hereinafter “Mas well-being”) which is an engineering program that interprets the physical phenomenon of electronic records in the second (2D) and the third (3D).
The defendant company is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling semiconductor equipment.
Defendant B is working at the Kim Sea Branch of the Defendant Company, and was in charge of overall production such as purchase of materials, production, quality, supply, and business.
around July 8, 2013, Defendant B, who installed and used Defendant B’s program, was equipped with illegal reproductions of 5.0 in his own computer at the Kim Sea Branch Office of the Defendant Company, and used the program without the Plaintiff’s consent from July 8, 2013 to March 24, 2015.
around November 5, 2014 and March 24, 2015, Defendant B used the above program without Plaintiff B’s consent from around November 5, 2014 to around March 24, 2015.
On December 14, 2015, the Defendants issued a summary order of KRW 2,000,000 as criminal facts constituting a violation of the Copyright Act that “Defendant B installed and used pro- oys and well-known reproductions in connection with the work of the Defendant Company, thereby infringing the Plaintiffs’ copyright.” The summary order became final and conclusive around that time.
(C) Defendant B’s assertion of the Plaintiff P&C as to the claim against the Defendants of the Plaintiff P&C, on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff’s assertion of the Plaintiff C&C’s claim against the Defendants of the Plaintiff P&C is without dispute (based on recognition); (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion of the Plaintiff’s assertion of No. 10349, Oct. 1, 2005;