[출판물발매배포금지등][집12(2)민,115]
Article 320 (Effect of Non-Submission of Documents by Parties)
The documents mentioned in this Article shall be subject to the obligation to submit documents under each subparagraph of Article 316 of this Act, and if the documents do not comply with the order to submit such documents, the court recognizes that the allegations of the other party as to the documents are true means that the documents alleged by the party who requested the order to submit the documents can be acknowledged that there are documents stating the purport of the documents and the facts to prove under Article 317 of this Act, and it does not mean that
Article 320 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 316 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 317 of the Civil Procedure Act
Preliminary Order (Attorney Yu Byung-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Dong Publication Co., Ltd. (Attorney Hong Hong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 63Na752 delivered on March 9, 1964
The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be reversed.
The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
1. In the case of the transfer of copyright by Defendant’s attorney, the court below acknowledged the fact that the taxes equivalent to 6/100 of the fixed price of the work in customary terms are paid to the copyright holder, notwithstanding the existence of an agreement, but it is not clear whether it refers to the customary law or the customary law, which is the fact under Article 106 of the Civil Code, is referred to. Furthermore, even if the above custom belongs to any of the above, the court below reviewed the first ground for appeal that it is unlawful to recognize the customary law by only the witness’
In view of the original judgment, the phrase “finite” pointed out in the debate place is not only clear from before and after the judgment, but also it cannot be said that there is no illegality by recognizing the custom as a fact by the witness’s testimony. Therefore, the argument is groundless.
2. Next, in calculating sales volume exceeding 10,000 won in this case, we examine the second ground of appeal that the court below did not err in recognizing the whole number of the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that it did not comply with the order to submit books to the defendant company upon request by the plaintiff.
According to Article 320 of the Civil Procedure Act, in a case where a party fails to comply with an order to submit a document, the court may admit that the allegations of the other party as true, and the document as referred to in Article 316 of the said Act is obligated to submit a document pursuant to each subparagraph of Article 316 of the said Act, and in a case where the party does not comply with such order to submit the document, the court recognizes that the other party’s assertion as to the document is true. It does not mean that the document alleged by the party who requested the order to submit the document is proven that there is a document stating the purport of the document and the fact proving the document under
Nevertheless, the court below held that the defendant's submission of all of the work orders under the jurisdiction of the defendant publishing company in the defendant's letter of work under the jurisdiction of the management department of the defendant publishing company was limited to 1958 to 1962, but it was erroneous for the court below to see that the defendant's acceptance of the plaintiff's letter of sale of the plaintiff's original letter of work was erroneous because it erred in understanding Article 320 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it was erroneous for the court below to see that the defendant did not comply with the submission of the document, and that the document should be submitted as a document by the defendant under Article 316 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Unless otherwise provided for in the Copyright Act, it should be governed by the Civil Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes in view of the legal provisions of Article 62 of the Copyright Act and the purport of the plaintiff's claim is obvious in view of the infringement of the original right of exploitation of a work, and the purport of the plaintiff's claim for consolation money in order to claim compensation for the plaintiff's mental damage caused by the damage of the plaintiff's honor and sexual network without the plaintiff's consent, and the defendant's alteration of the contents is legitimate and does not cause damage to the author's honor and sexual network. Therefore, in order to determine consolation money for the plaintiff in this case, the court below erred in the facts that the defendant opened the work without the plaintiff's consent and damaged the plaintiff's reputation and sexual network. However, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations since it is justified in the judgment of the court below.
It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal on the remaining land and on the grounds that the original judgment was explained above, and it is reversed and ordered to re-examine the original judgment.
Justices Han Sung-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court