2. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant Neow Internet shall pay 4,900,000 won with 5% interest per annum from May 22, 2007 to June 24, 2010, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment;

B. Defendant Media 2.0,00 won and 6.3% per annum from June 18, 2009 to June 24, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; and

C. Defendant Enter-Tech Co., Ltd. shall pay 9,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from April 14, 2009 to June 24, 2010, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff and the claim extended in the trial against the defendant Tech Co., Ltd. is dismissed, respectively.

4. The total costs of the lawsuit are ten minutes, which are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants, respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

A. Termination of the Plaintiff’s copyright and trust contract

1) The Plaintiff is the copyright holder and the performance right holder who works or plays a musical work (hereinafter “each musical work of this case”) following the public factor.

(1) Blue color blue: plaintiff's smalle

(2) The distance of walking by a mixed person: plaintiff's valley or author.

3. Nitine: Plaintiff’s writing, writers, and stage performances.

2) The Plaintiff entered into a copyright trust agreement with the Korea Music Copyright Association (hereinafter “copyright Association”) for each musical work of this case, and notified the Copyright Association of April 6, 2004 of the termination of the contract.

B. Provision of the defendants' sound source service, etc.

The Defendants did not indicate the Plaintiff’s name without obtaining permission for the use of each musical work of this case from the Plaintiff, the copyright holder and the performance right holder, and instead converted each musical work of this case into digital compressed files as indicated in the attached music service mark, thereby providing the Internet users with music services through their music sites or other companies’ music sites, and selling microsing and singing chips.

C. Plaintiff’s notification of suspension of copyright infringement

1) On February 21, 2006, the Plaintiff notified Defendant Neow Internet of the suspension of infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright, etc. due to the Defendants’ provision of music source services on March 19, 2007, with respect to “blue blue blue” and “flue blue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue flue,” around March 19, 2007.

2) Meanwhile, from around August 2004, Defendant Neow Internet managed the “Neow” music site of Neow Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Neow”) from around May 23, 2005, notified Neow of the request for suspension of copyright infringement on “Neblue” and around that time, Defendant Neow suspended the supply of the above “Neluelue” service.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without any dispute, Gap 3 through 18, 20 through 24, 26 through 31, 33 through 38, 47 through 50, 58, 93, 117 through 119, Eul 1 through 12, 20, and Eul 1 (including family numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the defendants' author's property rights were infringed

(a) The right of reproduction (including the right of reproduction of performer);

According to the above facts, Defendant Neow Internet’s act of listening to paid music through music sites, such as juk temperature from December 1, 2005 to May 22, 2007, MP3 file sales, music provision, music video, household news (limited to “mar walking distance,” and “marine”) constitutes Defendant Media 200, 200, 200, 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00.

(b) Transmission rights (including transmission rights of performers);

According to the above facts, the defendants, by converting each musical work of this case into digital compressed files and fixing and storing it in the auxiliary storage device of the server, provided each musical work of this case for users to receive at the individual choice of the Internet users. In fact, the defendants sent digital compressed files of each musical work of this case stored in the wired and wireless telecommunication line server to each user at the individual request of the Internet users. Thus, the defendants' act constitutes infringement on the plaintiff's transmission right.

(c) franchises;

According to the above facts, the act of selling micro-sing machines and singing chips, which are tangible objects in which Defendant Loter technology stored “blue blus” constitutes infringement on the Plaintiff’s right of distribution.

D. Determination as to other Plaintiff’s assertion

1) The problem of the work already purchased

The plaintiff asserts to the purport that each act of the defendant Neow Internet, which enables the re-samping of the MP3 files and music files already purchased or allows the use of the background music continuously for background music, can be used by an unspecified number of users by means of reproduction of CDs and modification of MP3 display terms, etc. Thus, it constitutes "the possession of goods made by an act infringing copyright or other rights protected under this Act for the purpose of distribution with the knowledge of such fact".

However, “distribution” under Article 2 subparag. 23 of the Copyright Act refers to transferring or lending the original or its reproduction of a work, etc. to the public with or without payment. The concept of “distribution” refers to the transfer or lease of a work or its reproduction in the form of a tangible work, not intangible goods, in comparison with the concept of “transmission.” However, it cannot be deemed that the continuous use of a work or its reproduction in the form of a corporeal form is a transfer or lease of a work or its reproduction in the form of a corporeal form, since it cannot be said that the MP3 file or a musical file already purchased is downloaded, or that the continuous use of an already purchased background music is a transfer or lease of a work or its reproduction in the form of a corporeal form. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion related to Article 124(1)2 of the Copyright Act based on the “distribution” is without merit.

Furthermore, examining whether the above act of Defendant Neow infringes on the right of transmission, “transmission” under Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Copyright Act refers to providing works, etc. for the use of the work, etc. so that the members of the public may have access to the time and place individually selected during the transmission, including transmission made therefrom; and “public” under Article 2 subparag. 32 of the same Act refers to “specific number of persons (including a specific number of persons; hereinafter the same shall apply).” However, in cases where a user who purchased a MP3 file, a music file, or a historical music file already purchased is downloadd or used continuously through a background music, the above user cannot be deemed to be “public”, namely, many and unspecified persons or specified persons in the above “transmission,” and such act of Defendant Neow does not constitute infringement on the Plaintiff’s right of transmission.

2) Defendant Neow Internet, and Loter’s household news services;

Although the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Neow Internet and UN on the “blue el” violated his copyright, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff is a copyright holder with respect to the family portion of “blue blue”. Rather, according to each of the above evidence, the Nonparty is the author of “blue blue” and the above argument by the Plaintiff is without merit.

(iii) through search sites;

The plaintiff asserted that the defendant Neow Internet's prior hearing, family news service, etc. constituted a separate infringement different from the above infringement, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, considering the overall purport of the argument in the statement Nos. 18 and No. 10 of the evidence No. 10 of the plaintiff, the above "MMMS" service is merely merely a sound source search service, and it can be acknowledged that the service in the above "MMS" should be connected to the "TM" of the defendant Neow Internet in order to receive the above service directly with the searched sound source, so the above "MMS" is merely a mere mere provision of a simple search service. Thus, it does not constitute a separate infringement separate from the infringement of defendant Neow Internet as seen earlier. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4) Defendant Enter-Tech’s sing-sing-sing services

Although the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s singing service on Defendant’s “Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing-Sing

5) Defendant Neow Internet’s music listening link services

The term "link" means an Internet connected system under which a specific individual (hereinafter referred to as "A") indicates the address of a website operated and managed by another site operator (hereinafter referred to as "C") on his/her own web page in the form of a hybrid, and a third party who connects A's web site or B's web site (hereinafter referred to as "C") directly connects C's web site or transmits music files, etc. stored in C's server. The direct act of infringing another person's right of reproduction and transmission by link falls under the above A and B, and as a matter of principle, C's right of reproduction and transmission cannot be held liable for infringement of the right of reproduction by link.

However, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, Defendant Neow’s music listening link service operated by Defendant Neow Internet is not the direct subject of the link, but the Internet users are in the status of the operator of the site subject to the link placed on personal tables, etc. Therefore, in principle, Defendant Neow’s responsibility for infringement of the right of reproduction and the right of transmission cannot be imposed on Defendant Neow.

E. Determination as to other Defendants’ assertion

1) Defendant Neow Internet’s malicious service

Defendant Neow provides the music of “blue blue” as a service provider (ASP, APPce, hereinafter below) by Indian community (a service provider) and Defendant Neow Internet merely plays the role of linking users to the server of the above service provider through “jukdo.” Thus, Defendant Neow Internet does not assume any responsibility for copyright infringement caused by music provision. However, even based on Defendant Neow Internet’s assertion, Defendant Neow Internet provides the music service that allows Internet users to use the music provision service desired by it, and Defendant Neow Internet bears any direct responsibility for the infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright infringement by providing the above service, and Defendant Neow Internet bears any direct responsibility for the infringement of Defendant Neow’s copyright infringement by directly providing the above service.

2) Special Cases concerning warrant works:

Defendant Neow argues that the community video service is a cinematographic work and subject to Article 99 of the Copyright Act, so the Plaintiff is presumed to allow the public screening, broadcasting, transmission, reproduction, and distribution of a musical video, which is a cinematographic work, but it is presumed that the Plaintiff is presumed to have obtained permission, including the right to color, disclose, present, broadcast, and transmit a cinematographic work, from the author, to a person who has obtained permission for the cinematographic of a copyrighted work from the author. However, Defendant Neow Internet’s assertion that Defendant Neow obtained permission for the cinematographic of each copyrighted work of this case from the Plaintiff, and unless there is any proof, the above assertion by Defendant Neow Internet is without merit.

3. Whether the defendants' moral rights have been infringed

(a) Right to indicate name;

According to the above facts, the defendants did not indicate the plaintiff's name, which is the copyright holder, in posting each musical work of this case, and infringed the plaintiff's right to indicate his name (the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff's name was infringed upon the plaintiff's right to indicate the author's name as the non-party while providing the "blue color blue" service. However, the right to indicate name is the author's right to indicate his name or second name in the original or reproduction of the work, or in the medium of publication of the work. The plaintiff's fact that the plaintiff is not the copyright holder for the above house, which is the small portion of "blue color blue", is not the author's right to indicate his name or second name in the original

(b) Right to maintain identity;

1) Change of each musical work of this case (Article 13(1) of the Copyright Act)

A) Definitions of the right of integrity

Article 13(1) of the Copyright Act provides that "the author shall have the right to maintain the identity of the content, form, and title of the work," thereby guaranteeing the right of integrity of the author. Therefore, any addition, deletion, cutting, opening, etc. of the content, form, and title of the work beyond simply correcting the person who has omitted or correcting the portion that does not conform to the original law, to the extent that it does not infringe the identity of the work, shall be limited to the author with the right of integrity, and in principle, a third party may not make such alteration against his/her will without the consent of the author.

(b) a prior hearing service;

Defendant Neow Internet and media 2.0 provides prior hearing service without the consent of the Plaintiff who is the author. It cut the form of expression of the Plaintiff’s work to Internet users about about 1 to 30 seconds against the Plaintiff’s will and transmits it to Internet users about 1 to 1 to 30 seconds. Barring special circumstances, the Defendants’ act constitutes infringement on the Plaintiff’s right of integrity.

(c) telephone connection music services;

The call connection music service provided by Defendant Media 2.0 without the consent of the Plaintiff, who is the author, is converted to music files by partially extracting the Plaintiff’s original image against his will and converting it into music files, and then transmitting such music files to the buyer of the pertinent service. Barring any special circumstance, the above Defendant’s act constitutes infringement on the Plaintiff’s right of integrity.

(d) in the form of Isdi Sequcling;

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant Loen-Tech used "blue blue blue" in the form of singing-type music, provided for sing-to-sing-type music file download services, or sold in microsing-type music machines and sing-chips, and thus infringed the plaintiff's right to maintain identity. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant Loen-type type of sing-type type of 95 and 108 certificate alone has changed its content, form, etc. to the extent that it harms the identity of the plaintiff's "blue blue", and there is no other evidence otherwise, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2) Whether it is an inevitable change (Article 13(2)5 of the Copyright Act)

A) Defendant Neow Internet’s assertion

Defendant Neow asserts that prior hearing service is providing samples to buyers of music source service and it is inevitable to promote business sales. Thus, the above Defendant’s act constitutes “an alteration to the extent that it is deemed inappropriate” under Article 13(2)5 of the Copyright Act and thus, the Defendant did not assume the responsibility for infringement of the right of integrity.

B) Legal provisions and criteria

Article 13(2) of the Copyright Act provides that "the author shall not raise an objection to any of the following modifications: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the modifications in essential contents; however, the same shall not apply to the following modifications; where a work is used pursuant to the provisions of Article 23 of the same Act, the modification of expression to the extent deemed inevitable for the purpose of school education; 2. extension, rebuilding or other modifications of buildings; 3. alterations to the extent necessary for allowing a program not used for a specific computer to be used for another computer; 4. Changes to the extent necessary for allowing a program to be used for a specific computer more effectively; 5. Other modifications to the extent deemed inevitable in light of the nature of a work, the purpose and form of its use."

In this context, since the purpose of the use of copyrighted works and the form of action are clearly limited objectively, it can be interpreted relatively easily to what extent the exercise of the right of integrity is restricted due to the necessity of public interest. However, subparagraph 5 does not limit the use of copyrighted works and the form of action, and therefore, it is likely to damage the basic purpose of the Copyright Act that protects the right of integrity by excessively expanding the scope of illegality and protecting the right of integrity.

In light of this point, as to subparagraph 5, it shall be interpreted strictly to the extent equivalent to the case of subparagraphs 1 through 4 above, and therefore, as to "the extent deemed unavoidable in light of the nature, purpose of use and form of the work" under subparagraph 5, it shall be interpreted that it is not necessary to guarantee the author's objection because it is inevitable to alter and use the work due to the technical limit, the limit of the performer's ability, etc. in the use of the work, and it is not necessary to limit the author's objection due to the necessity of important public interest, and it shall not be deemed that the unauthorized user of the work arbitrarily cut and uses part of the work without the consent of the author for the mere reason of the necessity of transaction in the transaction in the work.

C) In the instant case:

As pointed out by the above defendant Neow provides listening service in advance to potential buyers of music source service, it cannot be said that there is an inevitable circumstance under the above laws and regulations that can promptly make changes without obtaining the consent of the author just because it is necessary due to the nature of the business or service. Even if the above necessity is acknowledged, the service provider should obtain consent to what extent the time of listening service should be set in advance from the plaintiff who is the author to potential buyers, and what portion should be provided as a sampling, and as long as the above defendant without the consent of the plaintiff, it cannot be deemed as an inevitable modification unless it changes the plaintiff's work without permission. Accordingly, the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. Defendants’ liability for damages

A. Establishment of liability for damages

1) Intention or negligence which is a requirement for establishment.

In order for the Defendants to be liable for damages due to the Plaintiff’s infringement of author’s property rights (including the right of reproduction, transmission, distribution, and performer’s property rights; hereinafter the same shall apply) and author’s moral rights (including the right of attribution, the right of integrity maintenance, and the performer’s property rights; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Defendants must have intention or negligence

2) Intentional or negligence on infringement of author’s property right

A) Defendant Neow Internet, UN technology

According to the above evidence, the above defendants can be recognized that they used each musical work of this case after concluding a lawful contract for the use of copyrighted works with the copyright association which originally authorized to use the copyrighted copyrighted work of this case. Thus, even if the plaintiff terminated the trust contract of this case with the copyright association on April 6, 2004, the above defendants cannot be deemed to have known or could have known the above circumstances as of April 6, 2004. Thus, the above defendants cannot be deemed to have been negligent or intentional as to the infringement of author's property right at the time of April 6, 2004.

However, according to the above facts, with respect to Defendant Neow Internet around March 19, 2007 and “Isk-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-

B) Defendant Media 2.0

According to each of the above evidence, Defendant Media 2.0 is acknowledged as having used “hye blue blue” and “hye blue blue blue” without concluding a contract to use a copyrighted work with the copyright association as well as the Plaintiff. Thus, from September 2, 2004, each author’s property right infringement from around September 2, 2004, on which the commencement date of

3) Intentional intent or negligence with respect to the infringement on author’s moral rights

As seen earlier, the Defendants did not indicate the Plaintiff’s name as the author, musicians, or performer of each musical work of this case through the web page, microsing machines, and singing chips of the music site operated and managed by himself. As seen earlier, in providing services such as prior hearing as seen earlier, Defendant Neow Internet, media 200, it is recognized that there was intention or negligence on infringement of author’s moral rights.

(b) Scope of damages;

1) Author’s property right portion

A) Determination criteria

Article 125(2) of the Copyright Act provides, “Where an author’s property right holder, etc. claims compensation from a person who has intentionally or negligently infringed his/her right, the amount of money which would normally be entitled to the exercise of his/her right may be claimed as the amount of damages suffered by the author’s property right, etc. In this context, the amount equivalent to the amount which would normally be entitled to the exercise of the right refers to the amount objectively equivalent to the amount which the infringer would have paid as the price for the use of the work if the infringer would have obtained permission for the use of the work. If the copyright holder does not enter into a contract for the use of the work in question or receive the user fee, it may be considered as one basis in calculating the amount of damages caused by the infringement. However, if the copyright holder entered into a contract for the use of the work in a similar form as the infringement and received the user fee, the court shall determine the amount of damages according to the provision of Article 125(2) of the Copyright Act, even if exceptional circumstances exist, or in collusion with the other party in a lawsuit seeking damages arising from the infringement.

B) Determination

(1) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the author and the artist of a musical work in a position similar to himself has received the royalty of KRW 5 million for the use of the copyrighted work through an individual contract, and in particular, in the case of singing machines and singing chips, the Plaintiff received approximately KRW 1 million for each model, and that this constitutes a case where the copyright holder entered into a contract for the use of the copyrighted work in relation to the use of the copyrighted work in a form similar to the infringement, and that the Defendants should compensate the Plaintiff for the amount of damages calculated by the above method.

The case presented by the Plaintiff refers to the case of concluding a contract for the use of musical works for advertisements, movies, games, etc., or to the contract for the relationship between not only the use of musical works but also the distribution, reproduction, marketing, etc., and it is different from the case of this case where the use of musical works is permitted by the public on the Internet. In addition, there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff or the general public has received the price for the use of copyrighted works in an amount of five million won or one million won for each of the music site operators or the producers of music-based and chip, respectively, between the Plaintiff and the producer of music-based music sites or the producer of music-based chip. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

(2) Defendant Neow Internet, UN technology asserts that managing copyrighted works through trust companies, such as copyright associations, should be ordinarily limited to the amount that the Plaintiff is entitled to receive as the payment for using copyrighted copyrighted works of this case, according to the collection regulations that collect the cost of using copyrighted copyrighted works in accordance with a certain rate compared with the frequency of usage provided by the Copyright Association, etc.

However, the defendants pointed out that the copyright association collects the amount of use according to a certain rate compared to the frequency of exploitation in cases where the copyright association enters into a contract for the use of copyrighted works with the operator of a music site, and there is no clear basis for calculating the amount of each copyrighted work among the right holders of copyrighted works among the amounts collected after deducting various expenses, fees, etc., and only the amount of money is distributed to the author and the author, one of the right holders of copyrighted works. Meanwhile, the defendants' assertion that ① specific basis for calculating the amount of each copyrighted work presented by the defendants is not clear, ② the provision of listening services is an act infringing the plaintiff's right of reproduction and transmission, which is the act infringing the plaintiff's right of reproduction and transmission, and ③ the copyright owner did not levy the amount of use in accordance with the copyright association's pricing policy, ③ the case where the copyright owner enters into a contract for the use of copyrighted works with the operator of a music site, even though there is no room for deducting the management expenses and fees from the copyright association, the amount of each of the above distribution presented by the defendants can not be asserted directly by the above defendants.

(3) As can be seen, even though the fact that the Plaintiff suffered damages due to the Defendants’ infringement on the author’s property right is recognized, it constitutes a case where it is difficult to calculate the amount of damages pursuant to Article 125 of the Copyright Act, and thus, it is reasonable to recognize considerable damages in light of the purport of pleadings and the result of examination of evidence pursuant to Article 1

In light of all the circumstances revealed through the following: the number of music sites and music source services operated and managed by the Defendants; the number of Internet members secured by the Defendants; the authorization of the music site; the period of infringement of the Defendants’ author’s property rights; the degree of intention and negligence; the purpose of pleading, such as the authorization and authorization of the musical work of this case; and the result of examination of evidence: (a) the amount to be compensated by Defendant Neow Internet due to the infringement of the author’s property rights of this case is KRW 2.5 million; (b) the amount to be compensated by Defendant Media 2.0 million; and (c) the amount to be compensated by Defendant Media 2.0 million; and (d) the amount to be compensated by Defendant Neow 5 million.

2) Authors’ moral rights portion

The defendants have the duty to avoid mental damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the plaintiff's infringement of author's moral rights. In light of the omission of name indication of the work of this case, the degree of modification of the work of this case, and all the circumstances revealed in this case, the amount to be compensated by the defendant Neow Internet due to the infringement of author's moral rights of this case shall be KRW 2.5 million, the amount to be compensated by the defendant media 2.0 million, and the amount to be compensated by the defendant Neow Tech 2.0 million, respectively, shall be determined as KRW 5 million.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant Neow Internet has an obligation to pay 5 million won ( = 2.5 million won + 2.5 million won) and 7 million won ( = 3.5 million won + 3.5 million won + 3.5 million won) as to the above aggregate damages from May 2, 2007 to the Plaintiff, and as to the above aggregate damages from May 18, 2009 to June 18, 2009, when copyright infringement has been continued, Defendant Neow's claim for additional damages from the above aggregate damages from 10 million won to 6.6% of the above total damages from the date following the judgment of the court of first instance to 6.6% of the above total damages from Defendant Neow's 200,000 won to 9.6% of the total damages from the above judgment of the court of first instance to 9.6% of the total damages from the date of termination of copyright infringement, each of the defendants' respective claims against Defendant 10,000 won to 6.6% of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant

[Attachment]

Judges Yellow-style (Presiding Judge)

1) In the instant case, as a result of the occurrence of copyright infringement by the Defendants from December 14, 2004 to July 2009, the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 7233, Oct. 16, 2004) to the current Copyright Act can be applied. Thus, unless there is any change in the specific contents of the pertinent provision, it shall be recorded on the basis of the current Copyright Act for convenience.