The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The summary of the case is the case where the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's employee used the log design that is the work created by the plaintiff by stealing it to the defendant and thus, he/she used it as the defendant's royalties, and that he/she seeks compensation for damages based on Article 35 of the Civil Act or the employer's liability pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act, and the payment of damages for delay is sought against the defendant.

The first instance court, upon the plaintiff's claim, received damages based on the employer's liability (50 million won) due to the infringement of author's property right, dismissed the remaining claims, and the defendant appealed against the part against which he lost.

(2) On February 1, 200, the court's reasoning for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance and the addition of this case is as follows: (a) the following facts are added to the fourth 7th tier of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) the defendant's assertion in the court of first instance is identical to the entry of the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the following three (3). Thus, this court's reasoning is identical to the entry of the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance.

"After that, all convictions against the defendant and D became final and conclusive."

[In April 9, 2014, the first instance court sentenced the Defendant and D respectively (10 million won) to a fine, and on July 11, 2014, the appellate court reversed the part concerning D in the first instance judgment and sentenced D to imprisonment (1 year of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years), and the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed (2014No1364 Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014No1364), and on October 27, 2014, the Supreme Court dismissed all of the appeals filed by the Defendant and D (2014Do9305).]

3. The part to be determined by this court [the defendant's assertion] is to ensure that the defendant's employee D did not entrust the plaintiff with the production of the Guro design, and that the plaintiff's employee F is entrusted with the installation of art food.