1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is limited to that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

subsections, d.

Except for the cases where a claim is used as follows, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

[Supplementary Use]

C. Article 126 of the Copyright Act provides, “The court shall recognize a reasonable amount of damages in accordance with Article 125 of the Copyright Act, even though the existence of damages is true, if it is difficult to calculate the amount of damages pursuant to Article 125 of the Copyright Act, taking into account the purport of pleadings and the result of examination of evidence.” 2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff suffered damages due to the Defendant’s infringement of copyright, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be known to the “amount ordinarily able to exercise the copyright” under Article 125(2) of the Copyright Act. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant case is even though the existence of damages occurred, and it is difficult to calculate the amount of damages pursuant to

Therefore, the amount of damages caused by copyright infringement is calculated in accordance with Article 126 of the Copyright Act.

3) In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 8, 17, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), and the overall purport of the fact inquiry results and arguments with respect to M& and N Co., Ltd. in this court, it is reasonable to determine the plaintiff's damages amounting to 21,00,000 won due to the defendant's copyright infringement. ① At the time of the copyright infringement of this case, the plaintiff sold the program of this case by entering into a license agreement (including a so-called "SA-up") with the content that grants the right to permanently use the program of this case to consumers when he was paid the user fees once from the consumers.

2. The defendant