The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. The lower court determined that the members of the Internet portal site operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant site”) infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright (right of reproduction and transmission) regarding the instant videos recorded in the lower judgment by intention or negligence.

For that reason, the video of this case produced by the Plaintiff is revealed that the stronger explains the basic principles of the party platform and shows direct demonstration, etc., and the content alone is produced by the efforts of the arbitr. The members of the Defendant website posted the video of this case to the car page opened on the Defendant website without the permission of the Plaintiff so that the general public can play and listen to it.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on copyright infringement without exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of

2. Whether aiding and abetting liability by Defendant’s omission is recognized (Ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 4)

A. Even if online service providers who operate the Internet portal site posted a notice that infringes on other persons’ copyright at the Internet space provided by the online service provider, and the Internet users can easily find the above notice through the search function, such circumstance alone does not immediately lead to the online service provider’s liability for tort against copyright infringement notices.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4343, Mar. 11, 2010). Even if online service providers posted a notice that infringes on other persons’ copyright at the Internet posting space provided, online service providers are also online service providers.