In this case where the Plaintiff sought compensation for damages on the ground that the Plaintiff infringed the Plaintiff’s program copyright, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case premised on the Plaintiff’s representative director as the author of the instant program was groundless, on the ground that D, a corporation, the representative director of which was the Plaintiff, planned the development of the instant program and had its employees develop the instant program, and that Article 5 of the former Computer Programs Protection Act (amended by Act No. 9625, Apr. 22, 2009; hereinafter the same) provides that the program created in the course of business by a person engaged in the business of a corporation, etc. under the planning of the State, corporation, organization, and other users (hereinafter “corporation, etc.”) shall be the author of the relevant program, unless otherwise stipulated in a contract or work regulations.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the court of first instance, the plaintiff established a personal business entity called D around April 199 and operated software development work. On March 10, 2001, the plaintiff created the program of this case and registered the program of this case with the author as the plaintiff on June 2, 2001, and the plaintiff established D on February 1, 2002. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, since D was not established at the time of creation and registration of the program of this case, the judgment of the court below that the author of the program of this case is the corporation D cannot be maintained any more.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is to find facts in violation of logical and empirical rules.