1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 55,000,000 with respect thereto to the Plaintiff and the period from November 20, 2015 to April 13, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company whose business objective is the development, production, sale, etc. of computer programs, and Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is the manufacturing business of electronic, electricity, and machinery parts, etc., and Defendant B is the representative director of the Defendant Company.

B. On January 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant Company on charges of illegal reproduction and use of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted work.

On April 14, 2016, an investigative agency seized and seized Defendant Company. During the search and seizure process, it was found that one program, which is a computer program in which the Plaintiff holds an author’s property right, was installed in the Defendant Company’s computer (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant programs”).

C. On November 20, 2015, the Defendants infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright by installing and using one program of this case, the Plaintiff’s copyright in the Defendant Company’s office without permission, at the Defendant Company’s office.

"A summary order of KRW 2,00,000, respectively, was issued on March 20, 2017 due to the facts constituting a crime of violation of the enemy's right of self-determination (Seoul District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 16694), and the above summary order became final and conclusive because the Defendants did not request formal trial.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1, each entry of this court's branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B, without the Plaintiff’s consent, has infringed the Plaintiff’s property right (right of reproduction) by reproducing and installing each of the instant programs on the computers in Defendant Company’s office without the consent of the Plaintiff, and thus, is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by tort pursuant to Article 125 of the Copyright Act.