1. The Defendants shall not reproduce, print, copy, publish, distribute, exhibit, and sell each teaching material listed in the separate sheet No. 1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Plaintiff is a U.K. company publishing the main implication of “Economistist”. The Plaintiff is entitled to take over the author’s property right from the author of the writing published in the said week, and any person wishing to reproduce works, etc. may pay the Plaintiff a prescribed fee and obtain permission to exploit works from the Plaintiff. The Defendant B is the representative director of the Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Private Institutes”) who operates the private teaching institute, produces learning materials, and sells teaching materials. The Defendant C is an employee of the Defendant Private Teaching Institutes in charge of the production of teaching materials.

B. Defendant B, while operating Defendant C’s educational institute, had Defendant C produce English teaching materials using articles recorded in the Plaintiff’s daytime. 2) The Defendant’s educational institute copied articles recorded in the Plaintiff’s daytime from around 2009 to around 2012 (hereinafter collectively “instant copyrighted materials”) without permission, as indicated in the separate sheet 2, and published the English teaching materials (the list is as indicated in the separate sheet 1; hereinafter collectively “the instant teaching materials”), and sold them to the students, etc. of the Defendant’s educational institute, and the Defendant B took lectures using the instant teaching materials.

C. The Plaintiff’s criminal complaint, etc. 1) The Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendants on the grounds that the Defendants infringed their copyright by producing teaching materials by reproducing his/her work without permission. 2) Defendant Private Teaching Institutes, C, each of which is subject to a summary order of KRW 5 million on July 26, 2013 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 2013 High Court Decision 17870), which became final and conclusive as it is.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 61, Eul evidence No. 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether copyright, etc. has been infringed;

A. According to the above recognition of the infringement of the right of reproduction and the right of distribution among the author’s property rights.