logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.14 2015가합541558
손해배상(지)
Text

1. The author's property right to the 'Wlodows' among the conjunctive claims filed by the plaintiff Microfrate Co., Ltd.

Reasons

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Plaintiff’s status as a party is the Plaintiff’s copyright holder, and the Plaintiff’s Korea mms are the Plaintiff’s affiliates of the computer operation system (O/S) software “surows” and the applied software “Office.”

The defendant is a company that engages in long-term lending business, such as information equipment, measuring instruments, construction equipment, etc., including ice PC, Nowon-gu (hereinafter collectively referred to as "PC"), monitors, digital composites, radars, projectors, projectors, servers, network equipment.

B. On March 15, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant manufactured and sold PC using an order-based trademark attachment method (OEM), such as SamsungM, which was agreed upon on March 15, 2010 by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, are set up by a window (OEM PC manufacturer; hereinafter the product group is referred to as “OEM PC”) based on the contract entered into with the Plaintiff MS, and is also sold after installing it in advance with the PC.

The defendant above A.

The PPC was installed in advance by OEM window on the leased PC while engaging in the lending business as described in paragraph (1).

(2) On March 5, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant under the former Computer Program Protection Act (amended by Act No. 9625, Apr. 22, 2009) on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant violated the former Computer Program Protection Act (amended by Act No. 9625, Apr. 22, 2009) by allowing the Defendant to use the OEM window by lending the OEM PC; (b) the Plaintiff filed a complaint under the agreement with the Defendant on March 5, 2010 (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (c) withdrawn the said complaint.

C. On March 22, 2010 and April 26, 2013, the Defendant concluded a license agreement for service suppliers and the Plaintiff’s service suppliers (hereinafter “SPLA agreement”), respectively, on March 22, 2010 and April 26, 2013.

Part of each SPALA contract shall be as shown in attached Form 2.

In accordance with the SPLA agreement, the Defendant is through the resaler, such as SFC Co., Ltd. on March 22, 2010.

arrow