beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 43,890,00 for Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 11,256,00 for Plaintiff B; and (c) for each of the said money, from August 20, 2015 to August 20, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) is a copyright holder of a DNA program, which develops 3D design programs, etc.
B. Plaintiff B (hereinafter “Plaintiff B”) is a copyright holder of an E program and F program, which develops 3D design and design programs.
C. The Defendant is a company that manufactures and sells automation equipment, motor vehicle electric appliances, etc.
On August 20, 2015, the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism’s copyright protection and the judicial police officers of Busan Office visited the Defendant’s office to investigate whether the program copyright has been violated against the Defendant’s office computers and Nowon-gu, and the Defendant’s employees. As a result, it was confirmed that: (a) there were three programs, three programs, one program, and two program programs (hereinafter referred to as “instant program”) were illegally installed in Nowon-gu owned by the Defendant in charge of G, H, and design verification work for specific facilities, although there were no problems in the Defendant’s office-related computers and Nowon-do; and (b) there were no problems in the Defendant’s office-related computers and Nowon-gu.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant crackdown”). E.
Accordingly, the defendant and the defendant's employees were accused of violating Articles 124 (Violation of Computer Program Copyright) and 141 (Joint Penal Provisions) of the Copyright Act at the Busan District Prosecutors' Office. On December 28, 2015, the Dong District Office (hereinafter "G et al."), without the plaintiffs' consent from February 9, 2015 to June 20, 2015, it is deemed that the plaintiffs illegally installed the program of this case, the copyright holder, in their own Nowon-gu computer, and used it for the defendant's business on August 20, 2015, although it is deemed that the above employees were both primary offenders, and since the occurrence of the case, the defendant purchased the products from the complainants of the plaintiffs et al. and deposited them in full.