beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 3,870,500 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 27, 2017 to November 21, 2019; and (b) the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is a corporation whose main business purpose is the manufacturing of lighting equipment, etc., and the defendant is a business operator who manufactures and sells lighting products with the trade name "C".
B. On April 2015, the Plaintiff completed the form of lighting products appearing on each left part of the comparison table of lighting products attached to the first Defendant 1 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s products”) and disclosed them at the Italian Amian international lighting exhibitions. From that time, the Plaintiff published the form of Plaintiff’s products in pictures.
C. On June 15, 2015, the Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s permission, posted the Plaintiff’s photograph of the Plaintiff’s product in the Kabro E, along with the pictures of the Defendant’s products handled by the Defendant, and thereafter sold lighting products appearing on the right side of the comparison table of the Nonindicted Defendant 1’s Products from January 2019 (hereinafter “Defendant products”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's statements, 1 through 6, 8, 17, 19, 23 through 27, Eul's statements, images, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to unfair competitive acts
A. (1) Whether an act of unfair competition constitutes an act of unfair competition) The Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”).
Article 2 Subparag. 1 (i) of the Act provides for the transfer or lease of, or display, or import or export of, goods produced by another person as a type of an unfair competition act. Here, the term “malibation” refers to the creation of goods in the same form as those of another person’s goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2006Ma342, Oct. 17, 2008; Supreme Court Order 2010Da20044, Mar. 29, 2012). Each of the “sameness” column in the table of comparison with Nonindicted Defendant 1’s lighting products is deemed the same product.