1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Plaintiff, which cited below, shall be revoked.

2. The Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Seoul Metropolitan Government, as part of the “urban branding business” project that creates dynamic images by enhancing the branding and strengthening the identity of Seoul as goods, decided to select B as Seoul brand through a public recruitment process for citizens (hereinafter “instant brand”), and to produce and install publicity sculptures utilizing the instant brand.

(hereinafter “instant project”). (b)

On October 8, 2015, Seoul Metropolitan Government publicly announced that limited competitive bidding should be conducted for the instant project, and C (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” without distinguishing between Defendant and C”) operated by Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) participated in the said bidding on November 3, 2015, and was selected as a priority bidder in the proposal evaluation committee implemented on November 5, 2015.

C. On December 28, 2015, the Defendant concluded a contract with Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the production of sculptures and received KRW 149,97,100,00 in return for the production and installation of sculptures identical with attached Table 2 in front of the E periodical located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant sculptures”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 through 5, 7 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant regarding the production and installation of the sculpture of this case which Seoul Government had copyright is unlawful because it has no standing or constitutes an abuse of rights.

However, in a lawsuit for performance, the standing to be a party is a matter to be determined by the plaintiff's assertion itself, and the issue of whether the plaintiff is a right holder or a defendant's performance obligor is only a ground to be determined within the merits, and it is not a matter to be determined as a party's standing before the merits.