A. In light of the content of a contract entered into between F (hereinafter “F”) and H (hereinafter “H”), H cannot be deemed as a copyright holder of content e-Ok.

B. In light of the fact that F actively participated in the process of e-Ok production, at least F is a co-copyright holder of e-Ok content.

(c)

H allowed F to use e-Ok content by F or G.

(d)

Defendants did not have the intent of copyright infringement.

2. Determination

A. The above argument that the contract written between F and H states states that H is a copyright holder of e-Ok content (see, e-Ok’s investigation record No. 167 pages), and that H cannot be deemed as a copyright holder of e-Ok’s content is without merit.

B. Whether the copyright holder of e-Ok content is determined according to the terms and conditions of a contract entered into between F and H

In addition, F is not determined by the degree of participation in the process of producing e-Ok content, and as seen above, H stipulates that H is the copyright holder of e-Ok content in the contract, and F is also a joint copyright holder of e-Ok content, there is no reason for the above argument that F is the joint copyright holder of e-Ok content.

(c)

1) Based on the fact that H permitted the use of e-Ok content, the Defendants present the circumstances that ① the witness M and N’s legal statement in the lower court and ② the H sent digital video files to Defendant B at the H’s side.

2) The lower court’s witness M and N made a statement to the effect that F would allow H to use the e-Ok content at the time of entering into the contract as F’s employee (see, e-Ok content No. 204, 212, the trial record No. 204, 212). However, there is no reasonable explanation as to the reasons why the content was not stated in the contract (see, e.g., page 204, 213, and 214 of the trial record). The witness M in the lower court stated that a large portion of the contract was modified at the time, but the said content was not stated in the contract