[1] Whether the test problem constitutes a copyrighted work under the Copyright Act in a case where a high school teacher’s expression of a test question or expression of a given answer without cutting the remaining students for the purpose of measuring his/her school performance degree and calculating his/her internal achievement (affirmative)

[2] The meaning of "the general public" under Article 9 of the Copyright Act concerning the ownership of the copyright of a work under the name of an organization

[3] The case holding that the copyright belongs to the local government that is the founder of a public high school pursuant to Article 9 of the Copyright Act, which is an organization's work that is published in the name of the high school when the questions of the internal and last examination were conducted by the teachers of the public high school

[4] The case holding that since the issue of interim or final examination conducted by private high school teachers does not fall under the category of an organization’s work under Article 9 of the Copyright Act, the copyright belongs to teachers who are examiners

[1] The examination questions given by high school teachers solely or jointly setting questions are historical facts required in the high school curriculum, the degree of knowledge and understanding of literary works, etc., natural and scientific principles, knowledge and understanding of computers, etc., degree of reading ability in foreign language, etc. As such, even though some of the examination questions was formed by extracting or transforming certain parts of textbooks, reference books, and other school entrance examination questions, etc., and the examination questions are indivisible with the standardized contents required in the curriculum in order to deliver the curriculum according to the current curriculum, the examination questions constitute copyrighted works protected under the Copyright Act, even if the above teachers’ emotional efforts to measure the degree of academic performance and calculate internal credibility in accordance with their educational ideology, and if it can be recognized that the expression of the examination questions or the expression of the answer presented can be minimum creative.

[2] According to Article 9 of the Copyright Act, where a person engaged in a business under the actual command and supervision of a corporation, etc., prepares a work under the planning of a corporation, etc. within the scope normally expected in the course of employment as well as directly ordered by such corporation, etc., and such work is made public in the name of the corporation, etc., the copyright of the work shall belong to a corporation, etc., other than the author, unless it is the author’s registered work. The term “general public” includes not only many and unspecified persons,

[3] The case holding that since the issue of internal and last examination conducted by teachers of public high schools was conducted in the course of their duties under the planning of the high school, only the name of the school is written and the questions are not written, and since it was not distributed and collected to the students of the pertinent school, it is an organization work publicly announced in the name of the pertinent high school, and its copyright belongs to the local government that is the founder of the pertinent school pursuant to Article 9 of the Copyright Act.

[4] The case holding that the above examination issue cannot be deemed as an organization's work under Article 9 of the Copyright Act, and its copyright belongs to the teachers registered in the examination place, on the ground that it is difficult to see that, although the examination questions in the middle and the end of the examination in the school prepared by private high school teachers include the name of the school in the table of the examination paper specifying the relevant examination part of the examination place, it is difficult to view that the applicant voluntarily displayed it for the purpose of specifying the relevant examination and it is difficult to view that the subject to attribution of the copyright

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act / [2] Article 2 subparag. 2 and Article 9 of the Copyright Act / [3] Article 9 of the Copyright Act / [4] Article 2 subparag. 2 and Article 9 of the Copyright Act

Kim Yong-hwan and 39 others (Attorney Nam-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Education Zone Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Kim Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

September 27, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay to each of the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet 27 to 39 of the plaintiffs' list 1 5% per annum from August 30, 2005 to October 18, 2006 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Each plaintiffs' remaining claims listed in attached Tables 27 through 39 and each plaintiffs' claims listed in attached Tables 1 through 26, and 40 are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 9/10 of the portion arising between each of the plaintiffs and the defendant listed in attached Tables 27 through 39 shall be borne by the above plaintiffs, the remainder by the defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant listed in attached Tables 1 through 26 and 40 shall be borne by the plaintiffs listed in attached Tables 1 through 26 and 40.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

[1] Plaintiff 1. Kim Yong-hwan or Lee Jae-su: the Defendant shall pay to Plaintiff 1. Kim Yong-hwan to 39. The amount of 50,000,100 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

40. Plaintiff 40: The Defendant shall pay 20,000,100 won to Plaintiff 40. The same shall apply to Plaintiff 40. The Defendant shall pay 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 10, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 65 (including each number), the results of the fact inquiry into Gyeonggi High School, noble High School, and the whole purport of arguments:

A. Plaintiff 1. Kim Yong-hwan or 26. Kim Jong-chul (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, who are teachers of Gyeonggi-do”) set up, solely or jointly, the examination questions in the column of the 2 list of the examination questions listed in the annexed Table 2 list among the examination questions (hereinafter “total examination questions of this case”), in order to assess the academic achievement of the students of each high school, and to calculate the academic achievement of the students of each of the above plaintiffs, who are the teachers of the Sungsung High School, and Kim Jong-nam (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, who are teachers of Sejong-si High School”) written the examination questions described in the column of the 2 list of the pertinent plaintiffs’ names.

B. The Defendant, a stock company established on August 18, 2001 for the purpose of information service related to education on the Internet and operation of the website www.zobo.com (hereinafter “satisecom”) on the Internet, provided data concerning the nationwide examination issues and provided the following services at a cost, thereby reproducing or transmitting each of the national middle and high schools examination issues.

(1) Data which can can find the nationwide test questions (hereinafter “original type data”) and the data which is stored in the form of image files after inputting the test questions in the “Korea Language97” or “Korea Language 2002” program (hereinafter “Korea Language Data”) are stored within the limit of 50,000 won for multi-traffic 50 months, and 80,000 won for multi-traffic 12 months and 1,000 won for multi-traffic 12 months, each of which can be downloaded with each of the price of KRW 80,000 for multi-traffic 50 (hereinafter “floitching service”).

(2) The original type of data stored in the form of image files as seen above, the Korean Language Policy and the Korean Language 97, and the Korean Language 2002 “Korea Language 202” program (hereinafter “Korean Language HWP data”) shall be 80,000 won for multi-traffic 70 months, and 100,000 won for multi-traffic 12 months for multi-traffic 10,000 won for multi-traffic 10,000 won for multi-traffic 10,000 won for each editing exclusive for editing (hereinafter “compicing services”).

(3) Services that provide 120,000 won in price and 200,000 won in price for six months and 12 months in price (hereinafter “fit special lecture services”).

(4) Services that provide 150,000 won in price and 220,000 won in price for six months and 12 months in price for the above editing exclusively for the foregoing editing members (hereinafter “the above editing special services”).

2. Whether the whole examination issue of this case is recognized as copyrighted

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The issue of the whole examination of this case is a work of creative nature protected by the Copyright Act. It is a work of creative nature that is protected by the Copyright Act.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The entire examination issue of this case is a reproduction of an existing issue, such as an existing textbook, reference book, or another school's examination issue, and it cannot be seen as containing an independent idea or appraisal of the author, so creativity cannot be recognized. Thus, it cannot be seen as a work subject to protection under the Copyright Act.

(b) Markets:

(1) A work protected under the Copyright Act shall be a creative expression of ideas or emotions obtained by a person’s mental effort, which constitutes a method of expression or any form of expression (see Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act). Here, the term “a creative production” means a work of an author’s own, which is not a pipe of the other’s work, and it is not necessary to enhance the level of the other’s work, but it means that there is a minimum creative nature to the extent of worth being protected under the Copyright Act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do227, Nov. 25, 1997); hereinafter, the whole examination issue of this case shall be examined as to whether it is a work subject to protection under the Copyright Act.

(2) Of the entire examination issues of this case, whether the objective test question Nos. 21 and 30 of the attached Table 2 list No. 64 and the objective test issue No. 5 of the attached list No. 2 list No. 70 is recognized

The facts that the plaintiffs, who are teachers of the reading center, independently or jointly, set the above examination questions are as mentioned above. However, according to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 53, 54, 57 (including each number in the case of additional numbers) and the whole arguments, the multiple-choice 21 among the examination questions listed in the attached Table Nos. 64 of the attached Table Nos. 64 of the attached Table Nos. 2 of the title Nos. 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 202, 30 among the examination questions listed in the attached Table Nos. 64 of the attached Table Nos. 2 of the title Nos. 64 of the title Nos. 1, 17, 203, and 5, among the examination questions listed in the attached Table No. 70 of the attached Table No. 2 of the title Nos. 2 of the above examination issue, it cannot be fully acknowledged that the above examination problems are the same to the minimum extent.

(3) Of the entire examination issues of this case, whether the copyrighted work of this case is recognized for the part excluding the examination issues of the above (2) (hereinafter “the examination issue of this case”).

The facts that the plaintiffs, who are teachers of Gyeonggi High School, noble reading centers, and teachers, solely or jointly set the whole examination issue of this case, are as seen earlier. According to the whole entries and arguments, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 61, 72, and 73 (including each number), the examination issue of this case is the historical facts required in high school curriculum, the degree of understanding of human and social knowledge and understanding of literary works, etc., nature and scientific principles, degree of knowledge and understanding of computer, foreign language piracy ability, etc., and the fact that the examination issue of this case is drawn up without teaching materials remaining. Thus, it is recognized that some of the examination issue of this case is composed of extracting or transforming certain parts of the textbook, reference, and other school entrance examination, etc., and even if the examination issue of this case constitutes an indivisible relation between the contents of the examination of this case and teachers, which is an integral issue, to the extent that it is necessary to deliver the questions to the minimum extent of the curriculum according to the current curriculum, it is acknowledged that the contents of the study of this case.

3. Determination of copyright holder of the examination issue of this case

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs' assertion

(A) Plaintiffs, who are sports clubs, reading centers, and teachers for congratulations and condolences;

The examination issue of this case drawn up by the above plaintiffs is not related to the work, but it cannot be said that it was distributed to the students who are members of the school, and in particular, in the case of the sublimination and competition and the examination issue of this case, it is a registered work with the settinger's mark, so the above plaintiffs are copyright holders of the examination issue of this case.

(B) The Plaintiff Eastern Institute

The above plaintiff is a school foundation which is a foundation for the establishment of the noble High School, and where the copyright of the noble High School is not recognized among the examination issues of this case to the plaintiffs who are the teachers of reading centers, it is preliminaryly determined by Article 9 of the Copyright Act to be the copyright holder of the noble High School among the examination issues of this case.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The examination problem of this case is that teachers of the relevant school are prepared in the course of their duties under the planning of the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development, and that the examination problem of this case is published because it is not distributed and collected to the students under his jurisdiction for the evaluation of interim and last tests. Thus, the copyright of the examination issue of this case belongs to the Republic of Korea

(b) Markets:

(1) Relevant regulations and their meanings

Copyright Act

Article 2 (Definitions) The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. The term “work” means a creative production belonging to the category of literary, scientific, or artistic works;

2. The term “author” means a person who has created a work;

16. The term “publication” means a reproduction and distribution of the works for the demand of the public;

17. The term “making works public” means to make the works open to the public by means of public performance, broadcasting, display or others, and to publish the works;

The author of a work in the name of an organization (hereinafter referred to as "work in the name of an organization") under the planning of a corporation, organization, or other user (hereinafter referred to as "corporation, etc." in this Article), which is made by a person engaged in the business of a corporation, etc. and made public in the name of a corporation, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "works in the name of an organization"), shall be the corporation, etc. unless otherwise stipulated in a contract, work

Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Schools listed in any subparagraph of Article 2 (Classification of National, Public and Private Schools) (hereinafter referred to as "schools") shall be classified into national schools established and operated by the State, public schools (classified into city and Do schools according to the founding entities) established and operated by local governments, and private schools established and operated by corporations or private persons.

According to Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Copyright Act, in principle, a person who created a work shall be the author of the work. According to Article 9 of the Copyright Act, a person who is actually under the command and supervision of a corporation, etc. and is engaged in such work shall prepare the work under the planning of a corporation, etc. within the scope normally expected in the course of employment as well as directly ordered by a corporation, etc., and shall be made public in the name of the corporation, etc., and if the work is not the author’s registered work, the copyright of the work shall be vested in a corporation, etc. which is not the author, etc.

(2) Determination of copyright holders of the Gyeonggi High School test issue among the test issue of the instant case (hereinafter “instant test issue”)

In full view of the contents of Gap evidence 3 and 5 (including each number), the fact-finding results of the Gyeonggi High School located in Seoul, and the whole purport of the arguments about the Gyeonggi High School: ① the scope of the examination determined by the Council of Education in accordance with the school performance management regulations of the Gyeonggi High School located in Seoul, and the contents of the examination, and the number of the questions, the relevant teachers set up the Gyeonggi High School Examination problem in this case; ② when the final examination problem is determined after the examination of the questions set up by the examiners, the representative teacher in charge of the school affairs, the director of the school affairs, the assistant principal, and the principal in the order of the head of the Gyeonggi High School. ③ The Gyeonggi High School's examination problem in this case is indicated as Korean language or Chinese at the right side of the examination site, and ④ since the Gyeonggi High School's examination problem in this case was not distributed to the students of the Gyeonggi High School for the purpose of the examination and evaluation, it can be acknowledged that the examination examination issue in this case is not conducted for the purpose of the Gyeonggi High School, which is an ordinary test and evaluation under the entrance's.

(3) Of the examination questions of this case, the examination questions of the noble High School and the Homan High School among the examination questions of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "examination questions of the noble High School of this case"), the examination questions of the noble High School of this case are "the examination issues of the noble Reading Center of this case", and the examination questions of the noble Reading Center of this case are combined with the examination questions of the noble Reading Center of this case and the examination questions of the light, and the judgment of copyright holders of this case (hereinafter referred to as "the examination issues of the noble and antiscopting.

In accordance with Article 9 of the Copyright Act, among the requirements for copyright ownership pursuant to Article 9 of the Copyright Act to corporations, etc. other than authors, first of all, we will examine whether the sublimination and debate of this case was published in the name of the relevant school, and whether it does not constitute the author's registered work.

(A) Facts recognized

The facts that the plaintiffs, who are the teachers of noble schools and teachers, independently or jointly, set up the examination questions of this case are as seen earlier. According to the results of the fact inquiries and arguments by Gap's Nos. 4, 6, and 7 (including each number), and the results of the fact inquiries by the noble High Schools of this Court, ① the above plaintiffs, where they jointly set the examination questions of the item in charge, have gone through the examination and correction procedures, ② the noble high schools and the Geman High Schools are private schools. ② The noble and the Geman High Schools are not issued and recovered from the relevant middle and the end examination. ④ The examination questions of the noble questions and the debate are as follows: ④ The names of the teachers, who are the examiners of this case, are indicated in the first upper part of the examination site or the seals of the applicants, and the English language No. 1, the English language No. 6, the English language No. 1, and the English language No. 4, and the English language No. 6, and the English language No. 1, respectively, the examination questions of this case are indicated. 6.

(B) Whether the school name was publicly announced on the instant noble reading center examination issues

In light of the facts and the following circumstances, among the examination papers for the noble reading center examination of this case, the part of the "saves reading center" in the "saves reading center first semester English test" used as a table indicating the relevant examination in part of the examination papers for the noble reading center examination of this case, and the "saves reading center" in the "saves reading center" in the "saves reading center" is merely an intermediate examination" or "savesary examination" used as a sign specifying the relevant examination at will, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the examination papers of this case are published in the name of the noble high school, because it is difficult to regard that the author voluntarily specified the relevant examination as a copyright holder, and that it is difficult to regard that there is a mark indicating that a third party is a test paper for the noble high school.

(C) Whether the title of the school for the border trial of this case was publicly announced

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the examination problem of the light drawing of this case was published in the name of the light drawing high school. Rather, according to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the light drawing of this case was published in the name of the applicant, not in the name of the light drawing high school, as the examination problem was distributed to the school students in the state specified in the examination paper without indicating the name of the applicant.

(D) Whether the author is a written work

In principle, Article 9 of the Copyright Act provides that a person who created a work shall be an author (Article 2 subparagraph 2). In interpreting Article 9 of the Copyright Act on the copyright of a work under the name of an organization, the above provision shall be interpreted as limited to the extent that it is an exception provision (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da31309 delivered on December 24, 1992). As seen earlier, there is the name of the originator for the examination issue of the noble reading center in this case. Thus, there is no evidence to see that the above name is nothing more than the indication of simple business allocation, and therefore, the issue of sublimination and writing in this case shall be deemed as the name of the originator.

(E) Therefore, since the examination issue of the instant sublimination and debate does not fall under the name of organization under Article 9 of the Copyright Act, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs, who are the sublimination and debate teachers, are the copyright holder or the co-copyrighter of the instant sublimination and debate issue, and that the shares of each co-appellant in the examination issue of restrictions on joint withdrawal are equal.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

(A) The plaintiffs, who are sports associations, reading centers, and teachers for gransium, are teachers of each high school and set up the whole examination issue of this case, and are copyright holders of the whole examination issue of this case. Since the defendant violated the plaintiffs' copyright by distributing and selling the whole examination issue of this case without the plaintiffs' permission, the defendant asserts that the above plaintiffs are obligated to pay 50,000,100 won as part of damages and damages for delay to the above plaintiffs. Thus, as seen earlier, the copyright of the sports examination of this case belongs to Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the main agent of the establishment and management of the Gyeonggi High School under Article 9 of the Copyright Act. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion, which is a sports teacher, under the premise that the sports examination of this case is a copyright owner of the sports and examination of this case, is without any justifiable reason, and it is recognized that the plaintiffs, who are teachers for gransium, and teachers for gransium, are the sole or joint applicants of the examination issue of noble, religious, or religious examinations of this case.

(B) In the event that the copyright of the instant noble reading center examination is not recognized to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff’s religious institute was the copyright holder of the instant noble reading center pursuant to Article 9 of the Copyright Act. As the Defendant infringed on the copyright of the Plaintiff’s religious institute by distributing and selling the instant noble reading center examination without the permission of the Plaintiff’s religious institute, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s religious institute KRW 20,000,100 as part of the damages and delay damages therefor. However, as seen earlier, the copyright of the instant noble reading center examination belongs to the Plaintiffs, who are the teachers of the noble reading center. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit without any further need.

4. Whether the defendant is liable for damages

A. Determination as to liability for damages

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 61, and 67 (including each number), and the whole arguments, the defendant divided the sublime and competition examination of this case into schools, regions, and members, and provided multi-party services to customers for a fee as described in the above Paragraph 1. without permission of the plaintiffs, from September 15, 2005, through the sublime reading center and the sublime.com site operated by the defendant, which is a teacher, provided multiple-party services without permission of the plaintiffs. The defendant contained the sublime examination of this case in data to 00, the sublime and the sublime examination of this case (including each sublime number Nos. 1 to 61, 67) and did not indicate the fact that the defendant used the sublime examination of this case for a period from 00 to 300, the sublime's property rights examination of this case. According to the above facts, the defendant's first sublime and 27, the sublime list No.

B. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

(1) The defendant paid user fees by concluding a contract for permission for use with publishing companies which are copyright holders of some textbooks among high school English textbooks. The defendant asserts that it is unfair to compel the defendant to pay for the same work the second amount of use for the same work. However, even if the issue of sublimination and competition is formed by extracting or modifying certain parts of the textbook at high school, it is recognized as a work with creativeness even if the specific parts of the textbook among the sublimination and competition issue of this case is recognized as the secondary works of the textbook, and the examination of the sublimination and competition issue of this case is a separate work independent of the textbook. Thus, even if the defendant concluded a contract for use with the copyright holders of some of the English textbooks and paid the price for the above work, the defendant's assertion that the above claim for compensation for damages is unfair.

(2) In addition, the defendant asserts to the purport that ① the examination issue of each school, such as the instant sublime and the instant sublime and the examination issue, should be disclosed to the general public pursuant to the Official Information Disclosure Act (hereinafter “Information Disclosure Act”) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. ② According to the report materials by the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, in order to strengthen the school's sexual management system and prevent the occurrence of fraudulent probability, the examination issue will be disclosed on the Internet homepage of each school since 2006. Thus, even if the defendant used the sublime and sublime and the examination issue for commercial purposes, it cannot be said that the copyright infringement was not committed, and that the above plaintiffs' damage was not caused.

① First of all, as alleged by the Defendant, the act of reproducing the copyrighted work for profit is an act of infringing the copyright even if the issue of the sublimination and competition of this case and the test is any information that can be disclosed to the general public under the Information Disclosure Act, and the act of reproducing the copyrighted work for profit is also an act of infringing the copyright. In addition, the above plaintiffs' property damage caused by the defendant's above copyright infringement refers to all damages in proximate causal relation with the defendant's copyright infringement act, and the passive damage refers to the loss of profit that would have been gained if the above plaintiffs had not been infringed. Thus, even if the defendant could conduct business by paying a reasonable price with the consent of the copyright holder, and even if the defendant did not pay a reasonable price to the copyright holder and did so for profit, the above plaintiffs' passive damage was caused. Therefore, the above argument

② We examine the following arguments. Even if the issue of the instant sublimination and competition as alleged by the Defendant is expected to be disclosed to the public on the Internet since 2006, the Defendant’s existing copyright infringement act is not to be retroactively justified, and as seen earlier, the occurrence of passive damages by the Defendant’s existing copyright infringement act is recognized, so the above argument is without merit.

5. Scope of liability for damages;

(a) Scope of compensation for damages against infringement of author's property right;

(1) In the event that a copyright holder, etc. claims compensation from a person who has intentionally or negligently infringed his/her right against a person who has intentionally or negligently infringed his/her right, the amount of such profit shall be presumed to be the amount of damage suffered by the copyright holder, etc. (Article 93(1) of the Copyright Act). Under Article 93(2) of the Copyright Act, the amount of the profit gained by the infringer as a result of the infringement is presumed to be the amount of damage suffered by the copyright holder, etc. (Article 93(2) of the Copyright Act), and the amount equivalent to the amount ordinarily entitled to receive by the copyright holder, etc., may be claimed as the amount of damage (Article 93(2) of the Copyright Act). As such, the Defendant’s profit gained by the Defendant

(2) First, the Defendant’s interests arising from the instant sublimination and competition and the use of the examination issue should be examined.

(A) The ratio of sales due to the instant sublimination and competition among the sales due to the Defendant’s examination of each high school.

According to Gap evidence 8- 3, 4, and Eul evidence 65-2 + 1-b. (1) and (2) of the above 1-3 + 8-1 + 6-2 of the test turnover of the above 4 + 60-1 + 60-6 of the total number of test turnover of the 60-1 + 40-6 of the total number of 6-15,250,000 of the 6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6--6--6-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, the defendant's sales due to the sublimination and examination of the sublimination during the above period (from March 22, 2004 to September 15, 2005, shall be deemed to be 18 months for the convenience of calculation) is 169,941 won [169,941 won = gold 1,307,242,803 won x 0.013% x 100% / 100 won, and less than won]. The defendant's above copyright infringement period (the sales amount due to the sublimination and examination of the sublimination during the above period from July 2, 2003 to September 15, 2005 shall be deemed to be 26.5 months for the convenience of calculation) shall be deemed to be 250,190 won (=169,941 won x 26.5 months x 18 months / 18 months).

(B) Calculation of the defendant's profit

The Defendant’s sales of the product in 204 2,88,821,235, and 204 1,313,949,063 of the product sales in 2004 - 30 per cent of the total sales in 2004 - 30 per cent of the product sales in 205 - 20 per cent of the product sales in 208 - 30 per cent of the product sales in 205 - 30 per cent of the product sales in 208 - 40 per cent of the product sales in 208 - 30 per cent of the product sales in 203 per cent of the product sales in 203 - 30 per cent of the product sales in 208, 40 per cent of the product sales in 205 per cent of the product sales in 208 per cent of the product sales in 208 per cent of the product sales in the database.

(3) Next, the following facts are insufficient to compute the amount ordinarily receivable by the Plaintiffs, who are teachers in the noble reading center and in the light of the evidence Nos. 62 and No. 63 on the amount ordinarily received by the exercise of copyright, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(4) Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the entire damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, who are teachers of noble reading centers and teachers for congratulationsing, caused by the Defendant’s infringement of the Defendant’s above author’s property rights are KRW 120,091, which is the Defendant’s profit amount. The damages of each of the above Plaintiffs is divided in proportion to the number of damages of each Plaintiff by the Plaintiff as to the entire damages, according to the number of times the damages of each Plaintiff by the Plaintiff per attached Table 3. As such, each of the damages of each of the

(b) Compensation for infringement of the right to indicate name;

As seen earlier, the Defendant infringed the Plaintiffs’ right to indicate their names, and in full view of all the circumstances such as the frequency of downloading and examining the instant noble and religious issues, the Defendant’s pattern and period of copyright infringement, and the specific circumstances of the infringement, it is reasonable to deem that the consolation money that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for due to the infringement of the right to indicate their names is as indicated in the column of the amount of consolation money for each Plaintiff’s damage.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages as stated in the item column of the total amount of damages for each plaintiff in attached Form 3, which is the sum of property damage and consolation money, to the plaintiffs who are teachers of noble reading centers and teachers, and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from August 30, 2005 to October 18, 2006, which is the day following the day when the copy of the complaint in this case was served to the defendant, as requested by the above plaintiffs, as to the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, until October 18, 206, and 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

6. Conclusion

If so, each claim against the defendant by the plaintiffs, who are teachers of noble reading centers and teachers for religious service, is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. Each claim against the plaintiffs, who are teachers for religious service, and the defendant of the defendant of the plaintiff's religious institute for religious service, is dismissed as it is so decided as per

[Attachment 1, 2, and 3]: Omission of each list;

Judges Jeong Young-jin (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-Un