Whether the orderer may see the orderer as the program author in the event that the orderer exclusively plans the program and invests funds and entrusts the development of manpower of the developer, and the developer develops and delivers the program solely for the orderer (affirmative)

The provisions of Article 7 of the former Computer Programs Protection Act (amended by Act No. 4712 of Jan. 5, 1994) concerning authors of programs created in the course of business do not apply to the contract for the production of a program. However, in exceptional cases such as where a person engaged in the business of a corporation, etc. solely develops and delivers the program for the client, and then entrusts the development to the developer by borrowing only human resources of the developer while investing funds, and the entrusted developer shall be deemed the program author by applying mutatis mutandis Article 7 of the same Act, deeming the program as corresponding to the program created in the course of business by a person engaged in the business of a corporation, etc. to be the program author.

Articles 2, 7 (see current Article 5), and 21 (see current Article 23) of the former Computer Programs Protection Act (Amended by Act No. 4712, Jan. 5, 1994);

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Han-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na4844 delivered on November 10, 1998

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

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

1. As to the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the program author

The provisions of Article 7 of the former Computer Programs Protection Act (amended by Act No. 4712 of Jan. 5, 1994, hereinafter referred to as the "Act") concerning authors of programs created in the course of business are not applicable to the contract for the production of a program. However, in exceptional cases such as where the ordering person plans a program entirely and invests funds, and entrusts the development of the human resources of the developer, and the entrusted developer develops and delivers the program solely for the ordering person and publishes it in the name of the ordering person, and the entrusted developer can be deemed as the program author by applying Article 7 of the Act mutatis mutandis.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the management program of this case was entrusted to the non-party 1 as part of the planning and development of the program through investment of the non-party 1 corporation, the non-party 1 corporation, as part of the planning and development of the program by the non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Ycheon Electric"), and the program was created by borrowing human resources from the non-party 1. Thus, the program author is not the non-party 1 but the ordering person. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error of law

2. As to the misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding that the management program of this case was a secondary program that modified and supplemented the initial program developed by being entrusted to Nonparty 2 and that the development of the management program of this case was entrusted to Nonparty 1, and that there was no specific amount of development cost set between Defendant 1 and Defendant 1, and that Nonparty 1 did not notify the payment of development cost for the astronomical Electric, and that the plaintiff was transferred the copyright of the management program of this case from the astronomical Electric on June 1, 1994, and there was no error of law by incomplete deliberation or misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, as pointed out in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants who are appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)