2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

On June 23, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the seizure disposition on the intangible property rights against the teaching materials listed in the attached Table 1 list against Nonparty AA, a stock company, is null and void.

A. On June 23, 2014, the Defendant seized unregistered copyright on teaching materials, etc. listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) identified as property of Nonparty AA (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party AA”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant copyright”); and notified Nonparty Company of the attachment on July 11, 2014; and each of the Plaintiff on July 17, 2014.

B. Before the instant disposition was issued, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 18, 2016 by asserting that the copyright was transferred from the Nonparty Company, and completed the establishment and transfer registration of the instant copyright on March 15, 2016 and April 5, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8-3 through 31, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 17, 18, 20, Eul evidence 19-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case, which did not go through the previous trial procedure, should be dismissed on the ground that there is no ground for invalidation regarding the disposition of this case.

Since Article 38(1) of the Administrative Litigation Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to a lawsuit seeking confirmation of nullity, etc., Article 38(1) of the same Act does not apply mutatis mutandis to the preceding trial procedure, as long as the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in the form of a litigation seeking confirmation of nullity, etc., whether it goes through the preceding trial procedure is not an issue (whether there is grounds for invalidation of the instant disposition or not is a matter to be determined in this

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

First, the Plaintiff received the copyright of this case from Nonparty Company on August 24, 2012 and September 7, 2012, which was prior to the instant disposition, and thus, the instant disposition is a seizure disposition for a third party’s property, not a taxpayer, and is void as a matter of course.

Second, the instant disposition is null and void since it omitted the registration procedure under Article 51(2) of the National Tax Collection Act. Rather, the Plaintiff completed the transfer registration of the instant copyright prior to the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant cannot oppose the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant disposition.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 is as listed in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination as to the assertion that the copyright of this case was already transferred in 2012

1) Facts of recognition

① On September 26, 2013, BB, the representative director of the non-party company, was present at the Seoul Regional Tax Office and stated as follows, and submitted a management entrustment agreement and a contract for the suspension of content use (2 years of contract) between the Plaintiff and the non-party company on August 23, 2012.

"Afax sent by BB to the Seoul Regional Tax Office on October 2, 2013, stating that some employees may engage in business activities as a separate legal entity, so that it is possible for them to settle the problem of employee's benefits." (The Fax sent by BB to the Seoul Regional Tax Office on October 2, 2013, stated that "the content use partnership agreement was prepared and operated in the name of the Plaintiff on the ground that some employees would be able to resolve benefits even if they are paid by engaging in business activities as a separate legal entity."

② In return for the entrusted management and the use of content, each of the above contracts states that the Plaintiff pays 5% of the monthly profit to the non-party company.

③ The agreement between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company for the authorization of content use (five years in the term of a contract) drafted on August 23, 2014 stipulates that the Plaintiff shall pay the Nonparty Company’s delinquent taxes equivalent to 5% of the monthly profit as the sales fee, on behalf of the Defendant.

④ On October 29, 2012, the Defendant seized the Plaintiff’s claim for fees, etc. against the Plaintiff. On August 22, 2014, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to pay the collected amount. From September 2014 to September 2015, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the fee of KRW 240 to three million each time.

⑤ On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a written plan to the effect that the Plaintiff may demand the Defendant to pay only two to three percent of monthly earnings.

(6) On July 10, 2012, the Defendant notified the non-party company of the seizure of sales claims, etc. against the non-party company's above regional headquarters (hereinafter referred to as "local headquarters"), and on August 17, 2012, the Plaintiff was established as the representative director of the CCC, holding 50% of shares issued, and the non-party company's shareholder CCC and DoDD's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's representative director. The non-party company intended to convert the company to the head of the regional headquarters on August 30, 2012, and urged the non-party company to conclude a new contract with the

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1, 6 through 16 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

According to the circumstances and facts of the above disposition, the following facts are revealed: (a) the content use agreement, etc. submitted to the defendant prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case does not include the content that the copyright in this case is separately transferred; and (b) the plaintiff and the non-party company did not raise any objection against the disposition in this case premised on the ownership of the non-party company; (c) the plaintiff is a corporation incorporated by the non-party company to avoid the validity of the disposition in arrears with respect to credit card sales claims and sales claims against the head of local headquarters, etc., and there is room to regard the non-party company as the same company. In light of these circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the copyright in this case was transferred to the plaintiff in 2012, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

D. Determination as to the assertion that the instant disposition omitted the registration procedure

Article 10 (2) of the Copyright Act provides that "copyright shall take place from the time of creation of a work and shall not require implementation of any procedure or form." Article 51 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "if the director of a tax office seizes intangible property rights, etc., he/she shall notify the right holder thereof." Thus, in seizing the copyright of this case which is unregistered, the defendant shall not be deemed to have gone through a separate registration procedure in addition to notifying the non-party company of seizure.

In addition, according to the circumstances and facts of the aforementioned disposition, the Plaintiff appears to be a corporation established by the non-party company to avoid the validity of the disposition on default, and the Plaintiff was notified of the disposition from the Defendant on July 17, 2014, and the Plaintiff did not register the seizure of the copyright of this case on March 15, 2016 and April 5, 2016 after the filing of the lawsuit in this case. In full view of these circumstances, even if the Plaintiff was transferred the copyright of this case from the non-party company after the disposition in this case, it can be deemed null and void against the public order and good morals (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da52622, Oct. 11, 2013). Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to constitute a third party under Article 54 of the Copyright Act, which cannot be asserted against the Defendant without the registration on seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da754706, Jul. 16, 2006).

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 2]

Relevant statutes

▣ 국세징수법

Article 51 (Seizure of Intangible Property Rights, etc.)

(1) Where intangible property rights, etc. are seized, the head of a tax office shall notify the owner thereof.

(2) If the transfer of the attached intangible property rights requires its registration or register, the head of a tax office shall entrust the registration or register of the seizure to the government agencies concerned. The same procedures shall also be taken for registration or register of its modification.

(3) If the attachment is made under paragraph (2), the head of a tax office shall notify it to the delinquent taxpayer.

▣ 저작권법

Article 10 (copyright)

(1) The author shall hold the rights under Articles 11 through 13 (hereinafter referred to as "author's moral rights") and the rights under Articles 16 through 22 (hereinafter referred to as "author's property rights").

(2) A copyright shall commence from the time of its creation, and shall not require a fulfillment of any procedure or form.

Article 54 (Registration and Effects of Alteration of Rights, etc.)

The following matters may be registered, and shall not be asserted against any third party unless they are registered:

1. Transfer of authors' property rights (excluding inheritance or other general succession) or restrictions on disposal;

2. Establishment, transfer, modification, extinguishment or restriction on disposal of the right of exclusive publication under Article 57 or the right of publication under Article 63;

3. Establishment, transfer, modification, extinguishment or restriction on disposal of author's property right, exclusive publication right under Article 57, and right of publication under Article 63. The end of the restriction on disposal.