logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.11 2016나69910
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases where dismissal or addition is made or added as set forth below 2, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts used or added;

A. On the 3rd side of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 3rd side of the judgment of the court of first instance and the 4th side of the 3rd side of the 4th side (1.c. 1) (C. 1) shall be followed as follows.

“C) Defendant’s national card provided Defendant A with card customer information without converting it.

The employees of Defendant A stored the said card customer information on the computer for business purposes and used the said card customer information for business purposes by sharing the stored pool.

[Nos. 3 through 12] of the first instance judgment.

2) The part of paragraphs (a) and (b) shall be described as follows:

“A) A) A became aware that the Defendant’s public card development work could store files connecting USB Magas because security programs are not installed in the business computer that he/she uses while conducting the FDS development work.

B) Around February 2013, B copied the card customer information stored in the co-owned brand at the Madernbook Center of the Defendant’s National Card, which was copied on the Defendant’s own computer for its business without a security program. The Defendant’s national card customer’s personal information, which was arbitrarily brought into the said computer, was copied to the above USB camera’s Meet. B copied the disclosed information at his own house, and then copied it to the above computer at his own home on April 2013, and then copied the information stored on the above computer at his own Med disc. 38th of the first instance judgment of the first instance judgment, “A difficult point” was later distributed or seized, and “G, upon investigation conducted by an investigative agency, did not have been stored in any other place, other than distributed or seized, by means of additional distribution or seizure.”

arrow