1. The Defendant: 37,520,00 won for Plaintiff A Company; 6,654,000 won for Plaintiff B Company; and 495,000 won for Plaintiff C Company.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are copyright holders of each of the following computer programs, the copyright of which is registered:

The Plaintiff’s program Plaintiff A and the Plaintiff’s program.

1. F;

2. G Plaintiff B

1. H:

2. I Plaintiff C

1. J;

2. K Plaintiff Co., Ltd. D

1. L;

B. The Defendant is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing metal tanks and storage containers.

C. On August 2017, the Haban Police Station visited the Defendant’s workplace to investigate the program reproduced and installed without permission at the Defendant’s workplace’s computer. The program found at the time of the Defendant’s workplace is as indicated in the “computer program name” and “unauthorized reproduction” column of the volume and amount of damages attached to the “computer program name” and “amount of unauthorized reproduction.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s employees, the key point of the Plaintiffs’ assertion, without permission, have set up each of the instant programs in Defendant’s workplace computers and infringed on the Plaintiffs’ copyright to each of the instant programs. Therefore, the Defendant, the employer, is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages arising from the infringement of copyright to each of the instant programs.

3. Determination

A. In relation to the instant case regarding the claim of the Plaintiffs, the Defendant asserted that each claim of the Plaintiff Company A and the Plaintiff Company B should be dismissed if the Plaintiff Company and the Plaintiff Company did not provide the security for the costs of lawsuit on March 31, 2019. However, on April 3, 2019, the said order was provided as security under the order to provide security for the said costs of lawsuit.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is not judged separately.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, the employees of the defendant each of the above cases without permission.