The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, Article 46(2) of the Copyright Act provides that a person who has obtained permission to exploit works may exploit the works within the scope of the method and conditions so authorized.

The court below decided that the defendant's act was within the scope of permission to use the city of this case and rejected the plaintiff's copyright infringement claim on the ground that the plaintiff's act was within the scope of permission to use the city of this case. The plaintiff and the defendant held C on June 6, 1996, together with the plaintiff. The defendant explained the background and meaning of C, and the defendant posted C's singing photographs on its website.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the court below’s determination of the scope of the license to use and accepted the Plaintiff’s assertion of copyright infringement is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of the license to use, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or exceeding the bounds of

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s moral right to the instant city was not infringed upon while holding C, on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s use of the instant city while holding C.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. On the fourth ground for appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.