Plaintiff (Law Firm Jinjin, Attorneys Kim Il-jin, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Kakao Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Jeong-jin, Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

August 25, 2016

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013Gahap107912 Decided August 17, 2015

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 280,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from August 25, 2016 to November 3, 2016, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 4/5 of the total litigation costs is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant.

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,534,814,100 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff has reduced the claim in this court).

1. Presumed factual basis

【Evidence Class 1, 2, 3, and 5 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

(a) A party;

The plaintiff is a person who carries on a business such as providing online education information, manufacturing of goods for party use, etc. with the trade name of ○○○○○○○○○.

The Defendant is a company operating a “(Internet Address 1 omitted)” (hereinafter “Defendant’s site”) which is an Internet portal site, and is an online service provider provided for in Article 2 subparag. 30 of the Copyright Act.

B. Production of motion pictures by the Plaintiff

Around July 2005, the Plaintiff produced 41 copies of the same video (hereinafter referred to as “instant video”) with respect to the Gu, and opened and operated a fee online video class program on the Plaintiff’s website (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s website”). The instant video class is composed of 41 courses, and the class unit is one month (40,000), two months (60,000), and three months (80,000) without limit to the number of times of the pertinent period.

(c) Defendant website’s services;

피고는 피고 회원에게 특정 범위 사람들의 친목 도모·정보 공유 등을 위하여 전자게시판인 ‘카페’를 개설·이용할 수 있는 서비스와 피고 사이트에 업로드된 모든 동영상을 이용할 수 있는 공간인 ‘티비팟’ 서비스를 제공한다.

피고 회원은 개설된 카페에서 피고가 제공하는 동영상 업로드 공간에 동영상을 업로드할 수 있고, 피고 회원이 카페에 동영상을 업로드할 때 ‘티비팟에 공개’ 기능을 사용할 경우 카페에 업로드된 동영상은 티비팟을 통하여 시청할 수 있다.

D. Plaintiff’s request for discontinuance of infringement of rights and Defendant’s answer

1) 원고는 2010. 8. 6. 피고에게, 피고 회원이 이 사건 동영상을 피고 사이트의 티비팟에 업로드하여 불특정한 여러 사람에게 유포되게 함으로써 원고의 이 사건 동영상 저작권을 침해하고 있고, 피고는 복제전송행위를 쉽게 함으로써 저작권 침해 방조행위를 하고 있으므로 조치하여 달라면서 이 사건 동영상이 업로드된 카페의 대표주소 17개를 기재하고, 피고 사이트 검색창과 티비팟 검색창에서 ‘○○○○○○○○’로 동영상을 검색하였을 때 이 사건 동영상이 검색된 화면과 이 사건 동영상 중 1개의 시작·중간·종료 화면을 캡처한 사진을 첨부하였다.

Accordingly, on August 16, 2010, the Defendant sent a reply to the Plaintiff on the ground that the pictures attached by the Plaintiff were deleted, and given warning to the members who run the screen pictures. However, given that the representative address of the car page presented by the Plaintiff alone makes it impossible to specify a notice infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright, the Defendant provided a reply to requesting the Plaintiff to provide information that could specify the screen pictures, such as URL, by referring to attached Form 40 of the Enforcement Rule of the Copyright Act.

2) 원고는 2013. 4. 16. 다시 피고에게, 피고 회원이 이 사건 동영상을 피고 사이트의 카페 및 티비팟에 업로드하여 원고의 이 사건 동영상 저작권을 침해하고 있으므로 조치하여 달라는 다음과 같은 내용의 통지를 하면서 이 사건 동영상이 업로드된 카페의 대표주소 100여 개를 기재하고, 피고 사이트 검색창과 티비팟 검색창에서 ‘○○○○○○○○’, ‘△△△’, ‘□□□□’ 등으로 동영상을 검색하였을 때의 화면과 이 사건 동영상 중 1개의 시작·중간·종료 화면을 캡처한 사진을 첨부하였다.

The title contained in the main text - In order to search the Plaintiff’s “S○○○○○○,” “△△△△,” and “△△△△” in the Defendant’s search book, only a simple search language for searching the Plaintiff’s “Stong Video Course,” i.e., “○○○○○○○○”, “△△△△”, and “△△△△△△” can easily find the Plaintiff’s video lectures. In the event of a display, the Defendant does not prevent unlawful reproduction and transmission of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted work, but rather promotes the Plaintiff’s reproduction and transmission of the Plaintiff’s video lectures by inserting the advertisement into the given screen, and providing “stove” function. The Defendant discontinued the above act, namely, the Defendant cannot find the Plaintiff’s video lectures from the Defendant’s website, and takes measures to ensure that the Defendant’s business convenience could not be seen. In addition, the Plaintiff’s act of infringement upon the Plaintiff’s member by investigating and notifying the Defendant’s member, and the Plaintiff’s act of infringement upon the Plaintiff’s reproduction and mental reproduction of the Plaintiff.

Accordingly, on April 23, 2013, the Defendant rendered the following answers to the Plaintiff on April 23, 2013: (a) the Plaintiff’s photograph and the representative address of the carbook, which the Plaintiff attached, are unable to specify the Plaintiff’s copyright; (b) so, URL address, car page name, bulletin board name, writing number, and text title are provided with information that can specify notices; and (c) the Defendant sent answers.

본문내 포함된 표 다음 위치 지정방식을 참고하여 삭제를 요청하는 게시물의 대상(URL)을 지정하여 주기 바란다. ※ 게시글 위치 지정 방식 1) 카페 - 해당 주소(URL)/카페 명/게시판 명/글 제목 또는 게시물 오른쪽 상단 [복사] 버튼 2) 블로그 - 해당 주소(URL)/블로그 명/카테고리 명/글 번호(URL 상의 숫자)/글 제목 또는 게시물 오른쪽 상단 [복사] 버튼 3) 지식 - 해당 주소(URL) 또는 글 제목/글쓴이/날짜(URL 입력 시에는 동일 내용을 메일로도 전송 바란다.) 4) 게시판 - 해당 주소(URL) 또는 게시판 명/글 번호/글 제목/글쓴이 5) 웹문서 - 피고 사이트 내 게시물이 아닌 타 사이트 게시물은 해당 사이트가 존재하는 원본 사이트에 게시물 삭제를 요청하여 주기 바란다. 원본 게시물이 삭제되면 피고 사이트검색에서도 반영된다. (만일, 게시물의 내용이 명백한 허위이거나 명예훼손이 입증된 경우라면 관련 자료를 주면 검토 후 답변을 주겠다.) 6) 티비팟 동영상 - “clipid="가 포함된 해당 주소(URL)/글 제목

3) 원고는 2013. 5. 10. 또다시 피고에게 원고의 저작권을 침해하는 게시물에 대하여 조치하여 달라면서 다음과 같이 피고의 카페와 티비팟에서 이 사건 동영상 게시물을 찾는 방법을 상세히 설명하였다.

본문내 포함된 표 - 피고의 2013. 4. 23.자 답변과 조치는 온라인정보제공자로서의 책임과 의무를 저버린 처사이다. - 원고와 같은 비전문가도 피고 사이트 검색창이나 티비팟 검색창에 “○○○○○○○○”, “△△△”, “□□□□” 등 간단한 검색어만 입력하면, 문제의 동영상과 올린 이를 쉽게 찾을 수 있음에도 불구하고 “문제가 되는 게시물의 대상을 파악할 수 없어 조치가 어렵다”고 답변한 피고의 저의가 무엇인지 이해할 수 없다. - 피고의 빠른 조치를 위하여 문제의 동영상과 올린 이를 찾는 방법을 알려준다. 원고가 제공한 카페 주소를 주소창에 치면, 해당 카페의 메인창이 뜨고, 카페 메인창에서 “동영상 보기” 또는 “당구 동영상 강좌를 표시하는 표제”를 클릭하면 바로 문제의 동영상을 찾을 수 있다. 또한, 저작권 침해 동영상의 출처로 나타난 피고의 티비팟 검색창에 이 사건 동영상을 찾아볼 수 있는 간단한 검색어 “○○○○○○○○”, “△△△”, “□□□□” 등을 입력하면 문제의 동영상이 화면에 나열되고, 나타난 문제의 동영상을 클릭하면 바로 해당 동영상을 시청할 수 있으며, 그 동영상 화면의 우측 상단에 표시된 "올린 이“를 클릭하면 올린 이의 동영상들을 일목요연하게 볼 수 있고, 그 화면만으로도 ”올린 이의 카페 주소 및 카페 명“을 쉽게 확인할 수 있다. - 원고가 통보한 문제의 회원뿐만 아니라, 전문가인 피고가 발본색원하여 “○○○○○○○○ △△△ 명인 동영상 강좌”가 더는 불법 복제와 전송이 되지 아니하도록 조치하여 주기 바란다. - 아울러 원고가 입은 막대한 손해를 조속한 시일 내 배상하여 주기 바란다.

On May 15, 2013, the Defendant sent the following answers to the Plaintiff on May 15, 2013: (a) the address of URL containing the instant video among the car page posts presented by the Plaintiff; and (b) the address presented by the Defendant verified whether the Plaintiff’s copyright infringement notice was issued.

In the table contained in the text - The “Attachment 1” and “Attachment 2” of the request received at this time, it is difficult to promptly take measures for suspension because the accurate subject at issue is not verifiable, but it is also difficult to confirm whether the subject is requested to suspend the “former video class” carried by the user of the “topiner of a posted object, the time-to-door,” which is indicated as the subject of the separate lottery. In accordance with Article 13 (Request for Suspension of Reproduction and Transmission) of the Enforcement Rule of the Copyright Act, the online service provider shall submit the request for suspension of reproduction and transmission in attached Form 40, and the party requesting suspension as a copyright infringement may conduct the processing following the request for suspension of reproduction and transmission by specifying the accurate URL in accordance with the relevant law without any error or omission of the subject of the report processing, and receive the report by the Defendant’s infringement reporting center, and then respond to the result of the request for suspension of copyright infringement.

4) On June 7, 2013, the Plaintiff stated a representative address in the “written request for the suspension of reproduction or transmission” in attached Form 40 of Article 13 of the Enforcement Rule of the Copyright Act to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the following contents upon requesting the measures.

Despite the fact that the Defendant’s motion for the suspension of copyright infringement (duplicated and transmitted) over the first and second instances of the Plaintiff’s motion for the suspension of copyright infringement (duplicated and transmitted), the Defendant does not delete the infringing video, despite the fact that the video infringed was indicated to the extent that it is recognizable to the Plaintiff’s students. - The Defendant sent a “written request for the suspension of reproduction and transmission” prepared in accordance with the attached Form 40 of Article 13 of the Enforcement Rule of the Copyright Act, which the Defendant wishes, and the delivery of this document would be immediately

Accordingly, on June 11, 2013, the defendant provided the plaintiff with information that can specify the notice and sent the following answers.

본문내 포함된 표 - 이번에 보낸 문서에서는 문제가 되는 대상의 URL이 아닌 카페, 티비팟의 일부 주소(전체 URL이 아닌 일부 주소)만을 지정하여 정확한 신고대상을 파악하는 데 어려움이 있다. - 문제가 되는 신고대상의 위치를 지정할 때에는 URL에 대한 카페 주소(카페 명)와 해당 카페의 게시판 명, 글 번호를 알려주기를 부탁한다. - 게시물 위치 지정 방식이 어려운 경우 고객센터(1577-3357)로 연락을 주면 위치 지정 방식을 안내하여 주겠다. - 다음 위치 지정방식을 참고하여 삭제를 요청하는 게시물의 대상(URL)을 지정하여 주시기 바란다. ※ 게시글 위치 지정 방식 1) 카페 - 해당 주소(URL)/카페 명/게시판 명/글 번호/글 제목 또는 게시물 오른쪽 상단 [복사] 버튼 Ex) http://cafe.daum.net/카페주소/게시판주소/글 번호 6) 티비팟 동영상 - "clipid="가 포함된 해당 주소(URL)/글 제목 Ex) http://tvpot.daum.net/clip/ClipView.do?clipid=글번호 숫자

E. The current status of the video of this case set up on the Defendant’s website

From the date of the notice of the instant video to August 25, 2016, the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, Defendant members run the instant video without permission on the Defendant’s website, etc., approximately KRW 5,116,047 (Attached 1); among them, the total number of inquiries from July 2013 to August 25, 2016, is approximately KRW 2,000,000.

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

피고 회원들은, 원고가 저작권을 가진 이 사건 동영상을 피고 사이트의 ‘카페’, ‘티비팟’ 서비스를 통하여 무단으로 업로드함으로써 티비팟에 접속한 일반인들이 로그인 없이도 스트리밍 방식으로 이 사건 동영상을 시청할 수 있도록 하고, 티비팟 이용자가 ‘담기’ 기능을 사용하여 이 사건 동영상을 복제할 수 있도록 하였으므로 원고의 이 사건 동영상 저작권(복제권, 전송권)을 침해하였다. 피고는 온라인서비스제공자로서 피고 회원의 저작권 침해행위를 방지하여야 할 작위의무가 있음에도 이를 이행하지 아니하였으므로 피고 회원의 저작권 침해행위에 대하여 부작위에 의한 방조에 따른 공동불법행위책임을 부담한다.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) Claim that the elements for establishing joint tort liability due to aiding and abetting by omission are not satisfied

① 해당 영상의 저작권 침해 여부 등이 문제 되는 경우 해당 영상과 직접적인 이해관계가 있거나 영상의 권리자가 아닌 한 그 불법성 여부를 명백하게 알 수 없고, 피고와 같은 온라인서비스제공자는 권리자가 침해게시물을 특정하지 아니하는 한 해당 동영상 원본과 대조하는 것 외에는 해당 게시물의 불법성을 확인할 수 없는데, 원고는 피고에게 이 사건 동영상의 원본을 제공한 적이 없고, 원고가 통지한 불분명한 정보만으로는 불법성 여부가 문제 되는 동영상의 위치조차 알 수 없으며, 원고가 제시하는 검색어만으로는 구체적으로 어떤 것이 원고의 권리를 침해하는 게시물인지 곧바로 확인하기 어려우므로 불법성이 명백하다고 볼 수 없다. ② 온라인서비스제공자의 사이트에 타인의 저작권을 침해하는 게시물이 게시되고 이를 검색어 입력을 통하여 찾을 수 있다고 하더라도 이러한 사정이 곧바로 ‘온라인서비스제공자가 침해게시물이 게시된 사정을 구체적으로 인식하였다거나 그 침해게시물의 존재를 인식할 수 있었음이 외관상 명백히 드러났다’고 추단할 수 있는 근거가 될 수 없으므로 피고는 저작권 침해행위를 구체적으로 인식할 수 없었다. ③ 원고는 복제·전송 중단 요청서( 저작권법 시행규칙 제13조 별지 제40호 서식)에 따라 침해게시물의 URL을 특정하여 조치를 요구하지 아니하였으므로 원고의 구체적·개별적인 삭제·차단 요구가 있었다고 볼 수 없다. ④ 검색어 기반 필터링 기술을 사용하기 위하여 피고 사이트나 티비팟 검색창에 원고가 제시한 검색어 ‘△△△’, ‘○○○○○○○○’ 등을 입력하는 경우, 검색결과에는 이 사건 동영상과 아무런 관련이 없는 동영상이 포함되어 있고, 그 재생시간도 57초부터 20분이 넘는 것까지 제각각이어서 피고가 조치하기 위하여는 임의로 검색된 동영상을 선별하여 일일이 끝까지 재생하여본 다음 원고의 동영상과 일치하는 것인지 대조·확인하는 작업을 거쳐야 하는데 이는 피고의 인력 여건상 불가능하다. 또한, 특징 기반 필터링 기술을 이용하기 위하여는 동영상 원본이 필수적인데 원고는 이 사건 동영상의 원본을 제공하지 아니하여 피고가 특징 기반 필터링 기술을 이용할 수도 없으므로 이 사건 동영상에 대하여 저작권 침해 여부를 확인하고 그에 대한 삭제 등 적절한 조치를 하는 것은 기술적·경제적으로 불가능하다. 따라서 피고는 피고 회원의 저작권 침해행위에 대하여 부작위에 의한 방조에 따른 공동불법행위책임을 부담하지 아니한다.

2) Claim of the means of real-time attack and defense

As a matter of course, the disadvantage that the Plaintiff did not timely submit arguments and evidence due to the delayed appointment of the attorney, etc., shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the attorney of the Plaintiff shall act for the Plaintiff at the first instance court, so it cannot be understood that the grounds for applying for permission of postponement of time necessary for the collection of evidence necessary for the preparation of preparatory documents cannot be understood. Since it is impossible for the Defendant to review the documents in accordance with the date for pleading and arrange for objections against this, it is evident that the submission of preparatory documents and evidence late after the Plaintiff may delay the completion of litigation by intention or gross negligence. Accordingly, the allegations and evidence newly presented by the Plaintiff at this court constitute the means of attack and defense by the

3) 티비팟의 ‘담기’ 기능을 통하여는 원고의 이 사건 동영상에 관한 복제권을 침해하지 아니하였다는 주장

티비팟 이용자가 ‘담기’ 기능을 이용하더라도 해당 동영상이 그 이용자의 컴퓨터로 다운로드 되거나 기타 일시적 또는 영구적으로 유형물에 고정된다는 의미의 복제가 이루어지는 것이 아니라, 단지 해당 동영상이 그 이용자의 ‘마이팟’이라는 개인 플레이리스트에 포함되도록 하여 그 접근을 쉽게 하는 것일 뿐이고, ‘마이팟’에 담긴 동영상의 재생은 이용자들이 업로드한 동영상을 ‘마이팟’이라는 매개 서비스를 통하여 재생하는 것에 지나지 아니하는 것이므로 ‘담기’ 기능을 통하여 복제가 이루어진다는 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

4) Claim for discharge

Since the defendant satisfies all the exemption requirements prescribed in Article 102 (1) 3 of the Copyright Act, the defendant shall not be held liable for the plaintiff's damage.

3. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) Copyright infringement by Defendant’s members

피고 회원들은 별지 1 ‘업로드 일자’란 기재 해당 일에 피고 사이트의 ‘회원 ID’란 기재 해당 카페에 이 사건 동영상 중 ‘동영상 명’란 기재 해당 동영상을 원고의 허락 없이 업로드하여 그 무렵부터 이 사건 변론종결일인 2016. 8. 25. 무렵까지 티비팟에 접속한 일반인들이 로그인 없이도 스트리밍 방식으로 해당 동영상을 ‘조회수’란 기재 횟수만큼 재생할 수 있도록 하였다.

나아가 갑 제4, 10, 15호증의 기재나 영상에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 이 사건 동영상은 강의자가 당구의 기본 원리를 설명하고 직접 시범 등을 보이는 내용으로서 그 내용만으로도 누군가의 노력 등에 의하여 제작된 것임을 알 수 있는 점, 실제로도 이 사건 동영상 시작 화면 왼쪽 위에 ‘○○○○○○○○ 온라인동영상강좌’, 마지막 화면에 ‘제작 ○○○○○○○○’라는 표시가 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고 회원들은 고의 또는 과실로 원고가 저작권을 가지고 있는 이 사건 동영상을 피고 사이트를 통하여 개설한 카페에 업로드하여 일반인이 티비팟 서비스를 통하여 이를 재생·시청할 수 있게 함으로써 원고의 이 사건 동영상에 관한 저작권(복제권, 전송권)을 침해하였다.

2) Joint tort liability for aiding and abetting the Defendant

A) Relevant legal principles

An act of aiding and abetting infringement of the right of reproduction, etc. protected under the Copyright Act refers to all direct and indirect acts that may easily cause infringement of another person’s right of reproduction, etc., and it is possible to assist users by negligence as well as aiding and abetting infringement. In the case of aiding and abetting by negligence, the content of negligence refers to the act of violating the duty of care that should not assist infringement, such as the right of reproduction. There is no need to clearly recognize the date, place, objects of infringement, such as actual right of reproduction, etc. in the act of aiding and abetting such infringement, and there is no need to clearly recognize who actually performs acts of reproduction, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da11626, Jan. 25, 2007). Even if the online service provider, who directly and indirectly posted a notice to the online service provider, was aware of the infringement of another person’s copyright rights at the online space where the online service provider operated the portal’s online service provider’s online service, and there is no need to clearly recognize the existence of an economic demand from the online service provider and its unlawful act of infringement.

According to the above legal principle, in order for an online service provider to be held liable for joint tort due to aiding and abetting by omission in relation to the act of posting a notice by the service user, the three requirements must be satisfied: ① the illegality of the notice is apparent; ② the victim has been specifically and individually required to delete and block the notice (or the situation where the service provider has made the notice, or the existence of the relevant notice is clearly known, if the service provider is aware of the circumstances in which the notice was posted, or could have been aware of the existence of the notice), ③ the technical and economic control of the relevant notice is possible.

B) Specific review

(1) Whether the illegality of the video bulletin of this case is evident

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the illegality of the video bulletin of this case is evident in light of the aforementioned premise and the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the entries and videos of evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 10, 21 and the purport of the entire pleadings

(A) On August 6, 2010, the Plaintiff sold the instant videos to the Defendant on commission online, and the Defendant’s members of the Defendant’s website run the instant videos that the Plaintiff had copyright without permission, and thus, notified the Plaintiff of the correction by immediately eliminating and blocking them. Therefore, the Defendant appears to have clearly known that the Plaintiff obtained economic benefits as a producer of the instant videos, and that the Defendant’s members run the instant videos produced by the Plaintiff on the Defendant’s website without permission.

(B) On the left side of the screen of the instant videos, there is an indication of the Plaintiff’s copyright on the “○○○○○○○○ online video class,” and on the last screen, “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○” on the Plaintiff’s instant videos,

(C) In the notice of August 6, 2010, the Plaintiff requested that “the Defendant’s Kapets member ID who was investigated as an infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright shall be notified as follows, as well as that of the Defendant’s Kapets member I wish to investigate the Plaintiff’s unauthorized reproductions, and to take measures to prevent the Plaintiff from viewing the Plaintiff’s instant videos at the Defendant’s website again.” On April 13, 2013, the Plaintiff requested that “the Defendant’s website take measures to prevent the Plaintiff from finding the instant videos at the Defendant’s site.” On May 10, 2013, the Defendant, as well as all experts, requested that “the Defendant, as well as the members of the Defendant’s member notified by the Plaintiff, requested to take measures to prevent any more unlawful reproduction and transmission of the instant videos,” and expressed his intention to request the Defendant’s entire video of this case on the Defendant’s website, explicitly.”

(D) The Defendant alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff could not know the illegality of the instant videos because he did not provide the original of the instant videos. However, the Plaintiff’s failure to provide the original files of the instant videos to the Defendant is only required by UDR information where the instant videos were posted to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not demand the original files of the instant videos. Thus, if the Defendant requested the original files, it appears that the Plaintiff could have received them immediately from the Plaintiff.

(2) Whether there was a specific and individual demand for deletion and blocking by the Plaintiff

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that there was a demand for deletion and blocking of specific and individual notices inasmuch as the Plaintiff provided detailed information that could specify the infringed notices in light of the aforementioned premise and the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the details and images stated in the evidence Nos. 4, 5, 10, 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, and 30, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

(A) The “written request for the suspension of reproduction or transmission” (Article 103(1) and (7) of the Copyright Act, Article 40(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Copyright Act, and Article 13 Subparag. 40 of the Enforcement Rule of the Copyright Act) provides that “the location information of the work requesting the suspension of reproduction or transmission” as “the location information of the work requiring the suspension of reproduction or transmission (URL, etc.)” is only one example among the means specifying the location information of the work requiring the suspension of reproduction or transmission, and thus, it cannot be deemed that specific and individual notices by the copyright holder and the demand for deletion or blocking refer to

(B) It is difficult to view that the Defendant’s deletion of part of the instant video posts without the Plaintiff’s provision of UDR is an essential condition for the Defendant’s deletion blocking measure.

(C) On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant of the method of searching the instant videos, such as the search language, in detail. According to such notification, the Plaintiff seems to have easily searched the instant videos.

(D) On the left side of the screen of the instant video start, there is an indication of the Plaintiff’s copyright on the last screen “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○,” and on the last screen, the instant video is made up of the front stage where a man in the same middle year (referred to △△△△△△△△△, called a master-party master-person) explains the principle of the party-to-face on the background of the party-to-face or lick, or shows the party-to-face model. Accordingly, the instant video can easily be easily identified solely on the so-called “ison-to-day” among the search results, which cannot be identified as an island-to-day may be easily recognizable by reproducing the relevant video by forming several seconds or several minutes.

(마) 피고의 주장에 의하더라도 ‘△△△’, ’○○○○○○○○‘ 등 원고가 지정한 검색어로 검색 시 검색되는 동영상 중 이 사건 동영상과 관련 없는 동영상은 극히 소수(‘○○ ○○○○○○’를 피고 사이트 검색창에 입력하는 경우 97건 중 7건, 티비팟 검색창에 입력하는 경우 37건 중 1건)에 불과하고, 이러한 동영상도 앞서 본 특징들로 쉽게 식별할 수 있다.

(F) The method of specifying the URL may be an accurate and efficient method for both the copyright holder and the online service provider in cases where the number of notices is small. However, in cases where approximately 3,00 notices are at issue as in the instant case, the right holder must specify the UR by holding approximately 3,00 notices on a daily basis and by copying and attaching one copy and one of the URL. The online service provider should find approximately 3,00 UR by receiving the URL list from the right holder in the manner of leading up to the Internet address creation. This is rather unreasonable because it requires more time and cost than the search method explained by the Plaintiff.

(G) In the case pertaining to MN media (hereinafter “MN media”) in which the issue of the liability for damages arising from the infringement of copyright on the instant videos was involving (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap564502 Decided November 28, 2014) and the case pertaining to the printing royalty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “MD”) (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2008Gahap20165 Decided June 30, 2009; hereinafter the above two rulings referred to as “related judgments”), an online service provider was not liable for damages, but the online service provider did not provide the Plaintiff with the URL for the posted materials.

(3) Whether the Defendant’s management control over the video posts of the instant case was possible technically and economically.

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant could have been able to manage and control the video posts of this case in technical and economic aspects in light of the aforementioned premise facts and the written evidence Nos. 8, 9, 11, 19, 23 through 31.

(A) As seen earlier, among the search results conducted in the search language of “△△△△△” and “○○○○○○○○,” etc., the video of this case can easily be identified only by an island and four days. In short, an island and four days can easily be easily identified by play a few seconds or several minutes. Therefore, it appears that the Defendant could have prevented the instant video from going through the search, search, and reproduction, or take technical measures to delete the video that is searched at least at least at a certain intervals.

(B) The Defendant, along with NAV, operated a monitoring center under the name of “Clin Center” as one of the most online service providers in the Republic of Korea, applied to the Defendant’s website the 365-hour real-time monitoring of all video images run by Defendant members on Defendant’s website. From May 2013, 201, the Defendant established and operated the Clining Operation Center, a monitoring specialized subsidiary, and operated the Clining Operation Center by establishing the following services. From January 14, 2009 to January 14, 2009, the Defendant applied the Clining Technology (a technology that knowss and blocks copyrighted works by using the unique characteristics of music and film files).

(C) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s failure to provide the original file of the instant videos to the Defendant is due to the fact that the Defendant did not demand the Plaintiff to file the original file of the instant videos. If the Defendant requested the original file, it would have been immediately received from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant would have been able to take technical measures to prevent the Plaintiff from running, searching, and reproducing the videos through the characteristic-based typeing technology, etc.

(D) The instant broadcast media and the printing royalty, a company with a much smaller size than the Defendant, are taking measures to ensure that the instant broadcast pictures do not run on their own sites.

(4) Sub-determination

결국, 온라인서비스제공자인 피고는 늦어도 원고로부터 이 사건 동영상 게시물을 찾는 방법이 상세히 기재된 네 번째 저작권 침해 통지를 받은 2013. 6. 7. 무렵 이후에는 피고 사이트에 업로드된 이 사건 동영상을 삭제하고 다시는 이 사건 동영상이 업로드되거나 검색되지 아니하도록 하는 등의 적절한 조치를 할 의무가 있는데, 피고가 이를 위반하여 피고 회원들의 저작권(복제권, 전송권) 침해를 쉽게 하였으므로 이 사건 동영상을 직접 게시하여 일반인들이 이를 시청할 수 있도록 한 피고 회원의 행위에 대하여 부작위에 의한 방조자로서 공동불법행위책임을 진다고 보는 것이 타당하다(원고는, 피고가 티비팟에 업로드되는 동영상에 관하여 ‘공개’를 기본설정으로 하고 카페에 업로드되는 동영상에 관하여는 ‘티비팟에 공개’를 기본설정으로 하여 피고 회원의 저작권 침해를 쉽게 하였으므로 작위에 의한 방조에 따른 공동불법행위책임도 부담한다고 주장하나, 피고 사이트에 저작권 침해 게시물이 주로 업로드된다고 볼 수 없는 상황에서 피고가 ‘비공개’를 원칙으로 피고 사이트를 운영하여야 할 의무가 있다고 볼 수 없을 뿐만 아니라, 피고에게는 피고 사이트의 운영방식을 선택할 권리가 있으므로 이와 같은 사정만으로는 피고가 작위에 의한 방조에 따른 공동불법행위책임을 진다고 볼 수 없다).

C) Judgment on the defendant's argument

(1) Claim of the means of real-time attack and defense

The method of attack or defense shall be submitted at an appropriate time in accordance with the progress of litigation (Article 146 of the Civil Procedure Act); and where it is deemed that the parties have delayed the conclusion of litigation by means of attack or defense intentionally or by gross negligence, the court may dismiss it by its ruling, either ex officio or upon the other party’s request (Article 149(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). Even if it is the method of attack or defense by real time, if the continuation of the date is required, and the deliberation of the method of attack or defense may be completed within the scope of the continuation date, or the contents thereof are included within the scope of litigation materials which have already completed a trial, it shall not be deemed that the conclusion of litigation may not be delayed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da53742, Apr. 7, 200).

After the Plaintiff submitted only a petition of appeal on September 1, 2015, on September 24, 2015, the date for submission from the court on September 15, 2015, and on October 15, 2015, it is clear that the Plaintiff submitted a written explanation order stating specific grounds for appeal and necessary evidence to the effect that “the delivery of a preparatory document stating the grounds for appeal and necessary evidence” did not submit any assertion or evidence despite being ordered to do so. From October 14, 2015, before the said date for submission, the Plaintiff filed an application for postponement of the time limit for an order to prepare a statement stating that “the number of cases in the appellate trial has been recently postponed three weeks after the said date for submission,” and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the submission of the legal brief and evidence was submitted to the court on December 1, 2015, which was before the date for filing the petition of appeal. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s legal representative was an intentional attack or defense of the first instance court, even if the Plaintiff’s new evidence was submitted.

(2) 티비팟의 ‘담기’ 기능을 통하여는 원고의 이 사건 동영상에 관한 복제권을 침해하지 아니하였다는 주장

저작권법상 ‘복제’라 함은 인쇄·사진촬영·복사·녹음·녹화 그 밖의 방법에 의하여 유형물에 고정하거나 유형물로 다시 제작하는 것을 말한다( 제2조 제22호 ). 갑 제13호증의 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 피고 사이트의 이용자들이 피고가 제공하는 카페나 블로그 서비스에 이 사건 동영상을 업로드하더라도 파일 자체가 공유되어 다른 이용자가 이를 다운로드 받음으로써 복제가 이루어지는 것이 아니라 해당 동영상이 피고 사이트에서 재생되는 것에 불과한 점, 티비팟의 ‘담기’ 기능을 이용한다고 하여 게시물이 이용자의 컴퓨터나 웹스토리지에 다운로드 된다거나 하여 일시적 또는 영구적으로 유형물에 고정된다는 의미의 복제가 이루어지는 것이 아니라 단지 해당 영상이 그 이용자의 ‘마이팟’이라는 개인 플레이리스트에 포함되어 그 접근이 쉬워지는 것에 불과한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 티비팟의 ‘담기’ 기능을 통하여는 이 사건 동영상에 관한 원고의 복제권이 침해되었다고 볼 수 없다. 피고의 주장은 이유 있다.

(3) Claim for discharge

In order for an online service provider to be exempted from liability for damages based on Article 102(1)3 of the Copyright Act, an online service provider shall immediately suspend reproduction or transmission of a work, etc. when he/she actually becomes aware of the infringement, or when he/she becomes aware of the fact or circumstance that infringement is evident through the request to suspend reproduction or transmission pursuant to Article 103(1)(c). However, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware of the fact or circumstance that the Plaintiff’s copyright regarding the instant video was infringed on four occasions from the Plaintiff, along with the relevant materials, and thus, he/she was aware of the infringement or obvious infringement. Nevertheless, since the Defendant did not properly suspend reproduction or transmission of the instant video, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s liability is exempted pursuant to Article 102(1)3 of the Copyright Act [Attachment 103(c)] of the Enforcement Rule of the Copyright Act, the Defendant’s request for suspension of reproduction or transmission of the instant copyrighted materials cannot be seen as the Defendant’s request for suspension of reproduction or transmission of the instant materials.

(b) Scope of damages;

1) 원고는, 저작권자는 그 권리의 행사로 통상 얻을 수 있는 금액에 상당하는 액을 손해액으로 하여 그 배상을 청구할 수 있음을 전제로, 41강으로 구성된 이 사건 동영상의 1개월 수강료가 4만 원이므로 1강당 1,000원(≒40,000원/41강)으로 계산하여 피고 사이트에 업로드된 동영상의 조회 수에 1,000원을 곱하는 방식으로 산정한 손해액 5,116,047,000원 중 일부인 1,534,814,100원(조회 수 1회당 300원)의 배상을 구한다.

2) The copyright holder may claim compensation for damages with the amount equivalent to the amount which can be ordinarily gained by the exercise of his/her right (Article 125(2) of the Copyright Act). The amount equivalent to the amount which can be ordinarily gained by the exercise of his/her right refers to the amount which is objectively equivalent to the amount which the infringer would have paid as the price if he/she had obtained permission to exploit the work (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da69631, Nov. 30, 2001).

그러나 ① 원고가 주장하는 한 달에 4만 원 또는 1회 조회에 1,000원이라는 금액은 일반인이 원고의 웹사이트에서 이 사건 동영상을 유료로 시청할 경우 지급하여야 하는 돈으로서 순수한 저작물 사용에 대한 대가뿐 아니라 여러 가지 다른 비용이 포함된 금액이므로 피고 또는 피고 회원들이 이 사건 동영상의 이용 허락을 받아 피고 사이트나 티비팟에 업로드하기 위하여 일반적으로 원고에게 지급하여야 할 이용료라고 단정하기 어려운 점, ② 이 사건 동영상은 한 달 수강료를 기준으로 하면 4만 원이나 유료 수강을 할 경우 정해진 기간 내에 횟수 제한 없이 무한정 볼 수 있는 점, ③ 이 사건 동영상 1편당 시청 가격이 약 1,000원이라 하더라도 그 전액을 원고의 수익이라고 볼 수는 없고, 원고 사이트 운영비, 전자결제 비용, 기타 강의 제작비 등을 고려하면 실제 원고의 수익은 그보다 적을 것으로 보이는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고의 손해액에 대한 주장을 그대로 받아들이기는 힘들고, 달리 권리의 행사로 통상 얻을 수 있는 금액에 상당하는 액을 산정할 수 있는 자료가 없다.

Therefore, it is reasonable for the Defendant to determine the amount of damages by taking into account the purpose of its pleading and the result of examination of evidence pursuant to Article 126 of the Copyright Act. Considering that the damages were 00 won by considering the overall purport of pleading Nos. 5, 18, 19, 20, and 8 and 9, the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff’s 40,000 won can be seen at the Plaintiff’s site for viewing the same image No. 41, and that the price of the instant video No. 1 is 1,000 won for calculating the damages by 00 won, ② the Plaintiff’s 60,000 won cannot be seen as 1,00 won for viewing the instant video No. 20, which is the Plaintiff’s video No. 300, which is the fact that the Plaintiff’s video No. 40, which is the Defendant’s video No. 7, which is the Defendant’s video No. 30, thereby gaining damages from the Defendant’s website No. 1.

3) However, according to the facts and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, the Plaintiff presented more detailed methods with respect to approximately 3,00 notices listed in the attached Table 1 at the Defendant’s specific request or did not cooperate more closely with the Defendant for a specific notice. The Plaintiff did not make more active efforts to protect rights, such as not filing a criminal complaint against the direct infringer who opened the video of this case without permission. Since the Plaintiff’s mistake was caused by the occurrence or expansion of damages, it is reasonable to consider the Plaintiff’s fault as 30% in light of the aforementioned various circumstances. Accordingly, the scope of the Defendant’s liability is limited to 70%.

4) Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing, the Defendant claimed 280,000,000 won (i.e., 400,000,000 won x 70%) and damages for delay from August 25, 2016, which is the date of the closing of argument in the instant case (the Plaintiff claimed damages from December 14, 2013, which is the day following the date of the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint), but the amount of damages calculated from July 2013 to the date of the closing of argument in the instant case. As such, the damages for delay is recognized from the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, which is the final day of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case), the Defendant is obligated to pay all of the statutory interest rate of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until November 3, 2016, which is the date of the final closing of argument in the instant case.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, so it is modified as per Disposition 1-A and 2 of the judgment of the court of

[Attachment Omission]

Judges exhaustr fever (Presiding Judge)