The Defendants posted part of the Plaintiff’s novels on the Internet website without the Plaintiff’s permission throughout the period before and after the Plaintiff’s registration of each copyright, thereby allowing many and unspecified persons to download it.

As to this, the Defendants were subject to a disposition of suspending or rejecting the indictment by an investigative agency, or a summary order issued by the court.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the whole documentary evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings (part of the defendants are deemed as confessions)

2. Defendant L asserts that the instant lawsuit did not satisfy the requirements for co-litigation, and thus, it is unlawful to determine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Article 65 (Requisite for Co-Litigation) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “In case where the rights or obligations forming the object of lawsuit are common to many persons, or are generated by the same factual or legal causes, such many persons may join in the lawsuit as co-litigants. The same shall also apply in case where the rights or obligations forming the object of lawsuit are of the same kind, and are generated by the same kind of factual or legal causes.

This case is permitted in cases falling under the latter part of this case.

Defendant L’s assertion is without merit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Na2037554 Decided February 16, 2017, 2017, which held that Defendant L’s abuse of the right of action is difficult to accept. (See Supreme Court Decision 2016Na203754 Decided February 16, 2017

A. The Defendants, as seen earlier, were subject to a disposition by an investigative agency that recognized that the Plaintiff’s respective novels in the instant case, copyright, had been posted on the Internet site without the Plaintiff’s permission, and that there was no suspicion.