beta
Text
1. The defendant (Counterclaim) shall use, reproduce, or remodel the computer program listed in attached Table 1 for business purpose.
Reasons
1. Demand for principal lawsuit:
A. The plaintiff's assertion is the copyright holder of the first program.
However, the defendant revised the first program without the plaintiff's consent, produced the second and third programs, and operated a business of providing C services for a fee using each program.
The Defendant’s above act constitutes an act infringing the Plaintiff’s right of adaptation and right of integrity among copyright of the Plaintiff’s program 1, and an act of acquiring and using a reproduction made by infringing the copyright of the program 1 program with the knowledge of such fact constitutes an act of copyright infringement pursuant to Article 124(1)3 of the Copyright Act.
Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks to use the records and copies produced by using each program as business use, reproduction, adaptation, and distribution prohibition, and each program against the Defendant, and seek compensation of KRW 10 million as part of the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s act.
B. In full view of whether the Plaintiff is a copyright holder of the program No. 1, 10, and 11, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness D, the program No. 1 is a research and development project conducted by D and E under the overall supervision and instruction of the Plaintiff, and the facts produced by the staff of the F Hospital’s computer team employees operated by the Plaintiff are acknowledged, and the facts constituting the cause of the principal claim as stated in the evidence No. 3 through No. 12, 22, and 25 are counter-proof, but the facts constituting the cause of the counterclaim claim as seen later are proved.
It is insufficient to reverse the recognition of the above, and there is no reflective evidence, so the program 1 is the plaintiff's work and the plaintiff's copyright holder.
C. 1) The fact that the Defendant used the program No. 1 until 2009 that the Defendant had conducted C service business by using the program is not a dispute between the parties. However, the evidence Nos. 5, 8, and 32, and 50 are raised.