The grounds for this part of this Court are the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment.

(Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The plaintiff's assertion by the parties is the producer of music record who planned and takes charge of the production of the first music record of this case.

However, in the process of producing the instant 2 phonogram, the Defendant reproduced the instant 1 phonogram “E” as it is, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s neighboring rights.

The defendant's assertion merely served as a recording engineer who assists in recording, and is not a music record producer of the first music record of this case.

Of the instant 2 music records, “E” is a new musical work with the help of the Defendant.

Meanwhile, the Defendant’s reproduction and distribution of the second phonogram of this case, even if the Plaintiff is the producer of the first phonogram of this case, does not infringe the Plaintiff’s neighboring rights.

Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Copyright Act, which was wholly amended by Act No. 3916 of Dec. 31, 1986, defines the concept of “production producer” as “the person who first fixed the sound on the phonogram.” The above provision was amended by Act No. 8101 of Dec. 28, 2006 pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 6 of the Copyright Act, which was wholly amended by Act No. 8101 of Dec. 28, 2006, as “the person who is responsible for the whole planning and responsible for the fixing sound on the phonogram.”

According to the previous provisions, since there is room for misunderstanding a person who actually fixed act as a phonogram producer, such risk is eliminated, and the "person who plans and makes an investment in the fixed act and takes charge of the result thereof" is clearly defined as the phonogram producer, the phonogram producer under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the former Copyright Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8101 of Dec. 28, 2006) shall be interpreted as the same meaning as the provision after the whole amendment.

(e).