1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 20,000,000 with the Plaintiff and the period from November 20, 2015 to July 10, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of developing, producing, and selling computer programs, which developed D (hereinafter “instant program”) and holds copyright for the aforementioned program.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company specialized in ship engineering design, and Defendant C is the representative director of the above company.

C. E, F, and G (hereinafter “E, etc.”) as an employee of the Defendant Company made each reproduction of the instant program installation files (hereinafter “instant reproduction”) in sequence to three computers of the Defendant Company, and E had the same reproduction as above on July 29, 2013; F on October 2, 2013; and G on October 17, 17 of the same year.

On November 20, 2015, the Defendants were sentenced to a fine of KRW 2,00,000 for each of the instant fines under the control of the Ulsan District Court’s 2014 high-level11 on the basis of criminal facts with the reproduction of the instant case as criminal facts, and the said judgment was finalized on November 28, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant criminal judgment”). 【No dispute exists on the ground of recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant Company E, etc., an employee of the Defendant Company, installed the instant program on the Defendant Company’s hard disc without the Plaintiff’s permission and reproduced the instant program, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s right of reproduction. (2) Defendant C, a representative director of the Defendant Company, took overall charge of the business affairs of the Defendant Company, used the instant program on a business basis, or aided and abetted the reproduction of the instant program by negligence

3 Since the reproduction of this case is related to the work of the defendant company, the defendant company is responsible for the employer, such as E, who is an employee.

In addition, the reproduction of this case is a tort that occurred in the course of performing the duties of Defendant C, the representative director, and the defendant company is also jointly and severally liable for the liability of the defendant C pursuant to Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act.