Seoul NED

2. KimIC (ETE);

Seoul

2. Kim;

Since Defendant 2 is a minor, the legal representative mother of parental authority

Defendants’ Address Young-si

[Judgment of the court below]

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

1. Regarding the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. Ground of appeal No.1

In light of the records, the agreement in the judgment of the court below on June 26, 1996 between the deceased Kim Jong-hwan and the defendant Seo-gu, made clear the unclear legal relationship with respect to the existing four music records of this case as stated in the judgment of the court below, and made it for the purpose of resolving all disputes with respect to the music records in the future, and therefore it is reasonable to see that the agreement is a compromise contract under the Civil Act. In addition, as part of the agreement in this case as part of the agreement in paragraph (1) of this case, it is nothing more than that the right to the existing four music records of this case as stipulated in paragraph (1) of the agreement of this case is transferred to Kim Jong-gu before the birth of Kim Jong-gu and in his death, it is nothing more than that of the transfer of the right to the previous four music records of this case to the defendant Kim Jong-gu before his death, and it is justified in the judgment of the court below that the

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of disposition documents or in violation of the rules of evidence.

The plaintiffs' assertion in the grounds of appeal is based on the premise that the above transfer clause is a private donation, and thus, it cannot be accepted without further review.

B. The ground of appeal No. 2 of the plaintiffs' ground of appeal No. 2 is based on the premise that the court below's determination that the neighboring rights as a performer, who was a performer who died of the number of copies of the previous four music records of this case under paragraph (3) of the agreement of this case, was legitimate, as it is based on the sharing of Kim Young-si and defendant west. However, as seen below, the defendants' assertion pointing out the illegality of the judgment of the court below is accepted. Thus, the plaintiffs' ground of appeal No. 2 cannot be accepted without further review

2. On the grounds of appeal by the Defendants, the lower court considered the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the neighboring rights of the performers, who died in respect of the four existing records of this case, were jointly owned by Defendant 1E, who was the father of Kim Jong-chul, and the wife, on the ground that in the instant agreement under Article 3 of the instant agreement, they agreed to enter into a contract in the event of the production of new records other than the instant four existing records and the instant four records by using sound sources recorded in the instant four existing records.

However, according to the agreement of this case, the provisions of paragraph (3) of the agreement of this case are not related to the new music records to be produced using the music source recorded in the existing four music records of this case, but to the music source itself. Paragraph (3) of the agreement of this case does not provide for the form of exercising neighboring rights in addition to the new music records to be produced using the music source recorded in the previous four music records of this case. Thus, it cannot be interpreted that Paragraph (3) of the agreement of this case is an agreement that the neighboring rights itself as a performer who had Kim Jong-chul with respect to the previous four music records of this case shall not be interpreted as the agreement that the neighboring rights themselves are jointly owned by Kim Young-gu and the defendant, and this is also the same in view of other circumstances taken into account by the court below.

On the other hand, Article 1 and 2 of the Agreement of this case differs from the person to whom the right is attributed by the form of sale of the phonogram using the same sound source. Since the above provisions cannot be deemed to have been determined as to the ownership of neighboring rights, the right to receive profits from the sale of the existing four music records of this case shall be interpreted to have the above defendant's right to obtain profits from the sale of the hybrid music records of this case using the sound source recorded in the previous four music records of this case, it is reasonable to interpret the above provisions to the effect that the above defendant has the right to obtain profits from the sale of the series music records of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below partially accepted the plaintiffs' claim based on the premise that the agreement of this case set the neighboring rights as a performer who had Kim Jong-chul with respect to the existing four music records of this case as the co-ownership of Kim Young-chul and defendant documents. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of a disposition document, which affected the conclusion

The defendants' ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed, and the part of the judgment below against the defendants is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Go-chul

Justices Kim Ji-hyung of the District Court

Justices Lee Jae-chul