[공연금지가처분][미간행]
[1] The nature of the work in case where each of the multiple authors who participated in the creation of the work can use the work separately (=combined work)
[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that musical works are merely a combination of sole works, and that musical producers cannot be deemed as independent copyright holders unless they have made a creative contribution to the completion of musical activities, and that musical writers, musical investments, etc. have neighboring rights in the performance itself
[1] Article 2 subparag. 13 of the Copyright Act / [2] Article 2 subparag. 13, Articles 63, 64, and 91 of the Copyright Act
Kim Yong-sik et al. (Attorney Cho Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Memba Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Rois, Attorneys Doh-yang et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Seoul High Court Order 2004Ra246 dated July 5, 2004
All reappeals are dismissed.
Article 2 Subparag. 13 of the Copyright Act provides that "the works jointly created by two or more persons, and the part of each contribution may not be separately used." Thus, even if multiple persons participated in the creation of a work, it shall be deemed that the creation of a work is not a joint work, but a so-called combined work, if it is possible to separate and use the performance of each person's creative activity.
The court below held that the applicant's musical work is "voluntary" (hereinafter the applicant's musical work planned and manufactured, and that the respondent is the copyright holder of the musical work planned and produced by him or the joint copyright holder's assertion. Under the premise of determining the applicant's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's musical work's legal principles.
Furthermore, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning by taking full account of the admitted evidence, determined that, although the applicant Kim Yong-sik, the producer of the first musical journal, the applicant's release date, took part in the production and performance of the first musical journal as the annual musical journal, the applicant's novel granted the first musical journal from a foreign motion picture to the main author or the author, the applicant's delivery date was involved in the revision of some main musical works or in the domestic work, and the applicant's musical production process and performance, the applicant's overall comparison and supervision were not limited to the applicant's musical musical journal's musical contribution, but to the applicant's musical contribution and the applicant's musical contribution to the original musical journal's musical journal's original musical contribution to the production process and performance of the first musical journal's musical journal's original musical contribution to the applicant's original musical journal's contribution to the production of the first musical journal's musical journal and the applicant's ability to make the first musical journal's musical contribution or its original musical contribution to the applicant's original musical work.
In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to musical copyright and rights to produce and distribute, or in violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the grounds for re-appeal. The Supreme Court's decision in the grounds for re-appeal cannot be an appropriate precedent of this case, unlike the case and its purport
Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)