logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.07 2017가합574484
저작권침해금지 및 부정경쟁행위금지 등
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are jointly and severally borne by the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff Company B is a private teaching institute that operates a private teaching institute business (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s private teaching institute”), and the Plaintiff is the representative director of Plaintiff’s private teaching institute (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s private teaching institute”), which is a private teaching institute that prepares “OPIC test (OP)”.

Plaintiff

A is a copyright holder for the book of “D” as indicated in attached Form 2, which is a teaching material for traffic test (hereinafter “Plaintiff book”). The Plaintiff’s private teaching institute is a copyright holder for the design of the Plaintiff’s performance column (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s design”) in attached Form 3.

B. From June 2016, the Defendant is operating a driving school to prepare for traffic test under the trade name “E”.

C. F is an instructor who conducts traffic test preparation in a driving school operated by the Defendant and uses the attached table 1 for teaching purposes (No. 23, hereinafter “Defendant’s lecture”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 24, 25, Eul evidence No. 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) Copyright infringement Plaintiff A is the copyright holder of the Plaintiff’s book, and Plaintiff’s private teaching institute is the copyright holder of the Plaintiff’s lecture. However, without the Plaintiff’s consent, the Defendant infringes on the Plaintiff’s copyright by using the Defendant’s lecture that is similar to the Plaintiff’s book and the Plaintiff’s lecture. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s design for a specific subject of infringement was made regardless of the Defendant, while the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s design for a specific subject of infringement was made out of the Defendant’s private teaching institute, the Defendant is primarily liable for joint tort liability and ancillary employer liability. 2) The Plaintiff’s private teaching institute for an unfair competition is primarily liable for damages caused by joint tort, and its ancillary employer liability.

arrow