[1] The case holding that the act of a user of the "small Sea 5 Services" stored a sound source file (MP3 files) by accessing another user's computer on his/her computer constitutes an act of infringing the music record producer's right of reproduction

[2] The case holding that the act of storing a sound source file that individual users download with their downloaded and own personally possessed at the downloader via the "Seuri Sea 5 Services" constitutes an act of infringing the right of transmission of music record producers

[3] The elements for establishing a joint tort under Article 760(1) of the Civil Code

[4] The case holding that the company that provided the service that enables its users to share music files in the form of MP3 using a P2P method while operating the Internet site "Sriuri Sea" did not hold the above service users liable for joint tort of infringement of neighboring rights

[5] Whether aiding and abetting by negligence is possible in infringement of the right of reproduction or transmission under the Copyright Act (affirmative), and the degree of awareness necessary for the aiding and abetting person

[6] The case where the operator of the file sharing service by the P2P method bears the responsibility to assist the service users in infringement of neighboring rights, etc.

[7] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that the operator of "services 5 services in the Sori-ri Sea" is aware at least of the occurrence of neighboring rights infringement by the service users in light of the development developments of "Suriri-ri Sea 5 Programs", and therefore, it cannot be exempted from the responsibility for aiding and abetting infringement of neighboring rights

[8] Whether “a person who infringes on copyright or other rights protected by this Act” under Article 123(1) of the Copyright Act includes a person who aids and abets copyright infringement (affirmative with qualification)

[9] The case holding that music record producers, whose neighboring rights are infringed, may seek the prohibition of infringement of neighboring rights and the prevention of infringement of neighboring rights under Article 123(1) of the Copyright Act against the operator of sound sea service based on the "Sari Sea 5 Program", which is responsible for aiding and abetting the infringement

[10] The meaning of "technical impossibility" under Article 102 (1) of the Copyright Act and the criteria for its determination

[11] Whether a person who provides a P2P service that is directly connected to a user’s computer, i.e., sharing a file, reproduction or transmission, constitutes an “online service provider” under Article 102 of the Copyright Act (affirmative)

[12] The case holding that it is not possible to take technical measures to prevent infringement of neighboring rights under Article 102 (2) of the Copyright Act, or to prevent and block infringement of neighboring rights, due to a series of technical measures such as a "small pening method" and a " green file system" as a supplementary measure taken by the operator of a "small sea 5 services"

[13] In the case of P2P services, whether technical measures for the protection of copyright, etc. are premised on “negativeing method” (negative)

[14] The case holding that the active writing method as a technical measure for the protection of copyright, etc. can not be seen as violating the principle of excessive prohibition by prohibiting the sharing of personal creations, such as user production content (UCC), or free files from personal copyright, or as a result excluding the right to request reproduction and transmission by online service users under Article 103 (3) of the Copyright Act

[15] Whether the “request for the suspension of reproduction or interactive transmission” under Article 103 of the Copyright Act is a requirement for the exercise of rights to hold an online service provider liable for infringement on copyright, or for the occurrence of an obligation of the online service provider to suspend reproduction or interactive transmission (negative)

[16] The purport of Article 104 of the Copyright Act stipulating the duty to take technical measures to protect copyright, etc. of online service providers of special types

[1] The case holding that the act of a user of the "small Sea 5 Services" to store the sound source file (MP3 files) by accessing another user's computer on his/her own computer constitutes an act of infringing the right of reproduction of a phonogram producer, since it is the act of fixing sound on a tangible medium (Article 2 subparagraph 22 of the Copyright Act)

[2] The case holding that an individual user's act of downloading a sound source file with his/her downloaded or personally holding a sound source file through "Seuri Sea 5 Services" constitutes an act of infringing the applicant's right of transmission, as long as the user has access to "Seuri Sea 5 Services" and the user has already been in a state where he/she can download the relevant file, it constitutes an act of infringing the user's right of transmission (Article 2 subparagraph 10 of the Copyright Act) on the grounds that the user who is connected to the above service provides the copyright for access to the relevant file at the time and place of individual choice (Article 2 subparagraph 10 of the Copyright Act)

[3] In order to establish a joint tort under Article 760(1) of the Civil Act, it does not require a common intent or a common perception of an act among the actors, but it should be deemed that an infringement on the victim’s rights is jointly committed in an objective view, and that the act was common cause for the occurrence of damages, and each act should constitute an independent tort.

[4] The case holding that the company providing a service that allows users to share music files in the form of MP3 (MPEG-1 Audio-3) in the form of P2P (peer topeer-), which is a software that allows users to share music files in the form of MP3 (MPEG-1 Audio-3), did not bear the joint tort liability for infringement of neighboring rights of the service users, since it is difficult to evaluate that the provision of the service infringes the rights of reproduction or transmission of music producers by itself in the form of MP3 or contributed directly and closely to the act of infringement of neighboring rights of the service users to the extent that it is difficult to judge that the service users were responsible for infringement of neighboring rights of the service users

[5] Aiding and abetting the infringement of the right of reproduction protected under the Copyright Act refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate the infringement of another person’s right of reproduction. Aiding and abetting the infringement of the right of reproduction as well as aiding and abetting by negligence as well as aiding and abetting by negligence. In aiding and abetting by negligence refers to a violation of this duty under the premise that the content of negligence has a duty of care not to assist the infringement of the right of reproduction. In aiding and abetting the infringement of the right of reproduction, the aiding and abetting person does not need to specifically recognize the date, time, place, object of reproduction, etc. of the actual infringement of the right of reproduction, and does not need to clearly recognize who actually takes place, and such legal doctrine also applies to aiding and abetting the infringement of the right of reproduction.

[6] Generally, the file sharing system based on the P2P method covers the number of unspecified users who access to the pertinent P2P service. The file offering act, namely, the file's e.g., access to P2P service by the user holding the pertinent file, and the file reception act, i.e., file downloading the file, at the same time and at the same time, the possibility of infringement of neighboring rights by the user's unauthorized circulation of copyrighted works in the digital form is always open to all users. However, even if the P2P system and its operators are uniform, it cannot be said that the user is responsible for aiding and abetting infringement, such as neighboring rights. Whether the operator can easily share and exchange the file in the process of providing P2P service, how and how the operator can easily share and exchange it, whether the operator's perception of neighboring rights and the possibility of infringement of neighboring rights, and whether the operator's management of neighboring rights can easily obtain neighboring rights' interests from the P2P system's duty of care and protection of neighboring rights, etc.

[7] The case holding that although "Seri-sea 5 Program" has a technical measure and system to protect the rights of neighboring rights holders compared to the previous sound sea 1, 2, and 3, the infringement of neighboring rights by the operator of "Seri-sea 5 Services" has continued on the inherent limitation of "small pening method (limited to a pening (Prohibition against sharing) requested from neighboring rights holders, such as neighboring rights holders, or already set up for the prohibition against sharing)", which is currently taken by the operator of "Seri-sea 5 Services", and such infringement is deemed inevitable in the future, and further, it is hard to view that the infringement of neighboring rights occurred in the above operator's neighboring rights as supplementary measures, and it is difficult to view that the "Seri-ri-sea 5" program operator's responsibility for infringement of neighboring rights is also difficult to avoid or avoid infringement by providing his own sound source information to the service operator.

[8] Article 123(1) of the Copyright Act provides that the other party to the claim for the suspension of infringement shall be “a person who infringes on copyright or other rights protected under this Act.” Even in a case where aiding and abetting infringement, considering the content and nature of aiding and abetting act, the degree of management and control of the aided and abetting person, profits generated by the aided and abetting person, etc., the aiding and abetting act is closely related to the pertinent infringement, and the aided and abetting person does not take any measures that are easy or should be taken, but where the aided and abetting person is aware of the infringement but does not take any measures that can remove the state of copyright infringement by suspending aiding and abetting act, it is reasonable to deem that the aided

[9] The case holding that, in light of the contents of the sound sea service based on the "Sari Sea 5 Program" and the circumstances such as users' control over infringement of neighboring rights, the above service operator who is responsible for aiding and abetting the infringement of neighboring rights can seek the prohibition of infringement of neighboring rights and the prevention of infringement of neighboring rights under Article 123(1) of the Copyright Act

[10] Article 102(1) of the Copyright Act provides that "technically impossible" refers to cases where it is technically impossible to prevent or block reproduction and transmission, which constitutes an infringement of copyright, etc., among the acts of reproduction and transmission by users on the premise that the online service itself is maintained. Therefore, even though online service users infringed on copyright, etc. by reproduction and transmission of copyrighted works, etc. using the pertinent online service, if the online service provider knew of such infringement and took technical measures to prevent or block such infringement by selecting reproduction and transmission, which is an infringement of copyright, etc., the online service provider is exempted from the responsibility for the relevant infringement.

[11] An online service provider referred to in Article 102 of the Copyright Act refers to a person who provides a service that enables another person to reproduce or transmit copyrighted works, stage performances, music records, broadcasting, or database through an information and communications network (Article 2 subparag. 30 of the Copyright Act). The information and communications network referred to in this context is apparent in its literal sense that it is not limited to an information and communications network of “self-defense” of the relevant service provider. Thus, even where a user provides file sharing, i.e., a P2P service that directly connects the computer of the user, i.e., reproduction or transmission

[12] The case holding that it is not possible to take technical measures to prevent infringement of neighboring rights under Article 102 (2) of the Copyright Act, or to prevent and block infringement of neighboring rights, due to a series of technical measures such as a "small pening method" and a " green file system" as a supplementary measure taken by the operator of a "small sea 5 services"

[13] It is difficult to view that technical measures for the protection of copyright, etc. must be a passive pening method in P2P service (the P2P service, which is taking measures for the prevention of infringement of copyright, etc. under the active pening method (the method allowing the sharing of files only for the files of the sound source permitted by the right holder), is already commercialized), and the act of sharing files that infringement of neighboring rights takes place between users without the involvement of the service provider, as provided in the Copyright Act, is subject to reduction of the responsibility of the P2P service provider under certain conditions as provided in the Copyright Act. However, in the P2P service, the degree of protection of the rights stipulated in the Act, such as neighboring rights, should not vary, and in the case of P2P service, the technical measures for the protection of copyright, etc. should not be considered to be premised on the "small pening method."

[14] The case holding that the active writing method as a technical measure for the protection of copyright, etc. can not be seen as violating the principle of excessive prohibition by prohibiting the sharing of personal creations, such as user production content (UCC) or other copyright of free files, or that it may not result in excluding the right to request reproduction and transmission by online service users under Article 103 (3) of the Copyright Act.

[15] The “request for the suspension of reproduction or transmission” under Article 103 of the Copyright Act is a requirement for the right holder whose right is infringed due to the reproduction or transmission of works, etc. using online service, etc., to use prompt and simplified procedures for the prompt and simple remedy of infringement requesting the online service provider to directly reproduce or suspend the reproduction or transmission of works, etc. without going through a trial, and such demand for the suspension of reproduction or transmission, i.e., demand for the suspension of reproduction or transmission, is not a requirement for the right holder’s exercise necessary to hold the right holder liable for infringement of copyright, etc. using online service, or obligation that the online service provider has to suspend reproduction or transmission.

[16] Article 104 of the Copyright Act, as in Article 103, is also similar to Article 103 of the same Act, it is apparent that the requirements for limiting the liability of an online service provider of a special type, or for taking the responsibility of an online service provider are not prescribed. Moreover, in light of the purport of the Copyright Act’s amendment, which seeks to strengthen the relationship with Article 102 that provides for the limitation on the liability of an online service provider, or to prevent infringement on the copyright holder’s rights, etc., it is reasonable to classify “online services primarily for transmitting copyrighted works, etc. among other persons,” which are highly likely to cause infringement on copyright, in particular, separately classify “online services for which the owner of a special type of online service provider takes the responsibility of taking measures under Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act without going through the court’s trial, and if such measures are not taken, it shall be subject to an administrative fine not exceeding 30 million won, thereby imposing additional obligations under Article 104 of the Copyright Act compared with other online service providers (Article 24).

[1] Article 2 subparag. 22 and Article 78 of the Copyright Act / [2] Articles 2 subparag. 10 and 81 of the Copyright Act / [3] Article 760(1) of the Civil Act / [4] Articles 2 subparag. 22, 10, 78, and 81 of the Copyright Act; Articles 760(1) of the Civil Act / [5] Article 2 subparag. 10, 22, 78, and 81 of the Copyright Act; Article 760(3) of the Civil Act / [6] Article 2 subparag. 10, 22, 78, and 81 of the Copyright Act; Article 760(3) of the Civil Act / [7] Article 2 subparag. 10, 222, 78, 81, and 760(3) of the Copyright Act / [10 of the Copyright Act / [3] Article 20(1) of the Copyright Act

[5] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da11626 decided Jan. 25, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 333)

Applicant 1 and one other (Law Firm Sejongyang, Attorneys Park Byung-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Seoul Central District Court Order 2006Kahap1535 dated August 22, 2006

1. Revocation of a decision of the first instance;

2. Subject to the deposit of KRW 1,00,000 ( KRW 1,000,000) on behalf of the respondent by means of a guarantee within seven (7) days from the date on which the claimant received the notice of this decision, or the submission of a document of contract of payment guarantee entrustment with the above amount as insurance amount

(a) The respondent shall not have users of the sound sea 5 program provided through the domain name Internet site, “www.soba.com” receive MP3 files containing each sound source listed in the separate sheet from downloading or downloading through the above program.

B. The respondent may not distribute the above 5 program of the sound sea through the Internet site described in the above A. (a) or provide MP3 file sharing services through the implementation of the 5 program of the said sound sea.

(c) The enforcement officer shall publicly notify the purport of each of the above orders in an appropriate manner.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the respondent.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or shall be vindicated by the record:

A. Status of the parties

(1) The applicants are neighboring rights producers of each sound source listed in the attached list (hereinafter “each sound source of this case”).

(2) On November 5, 2003, the respondent company is a company established for the purpose of processing and technical production of software and database, music service and sales through wired and wireless network, and has been operating the Internet site called “W.soriba.com” (hereinafter “instant Internet site”) at present, and have users exchange and communicate files directly connected with each other by P2P method (peer to peer and users’ personal computers without going through central server. Specific content of P2P method is deemed to be as follows.) MP3 [this case’s PEEG-1 Audio-3] program to provide PE-1 Audio-3” program to be developed in a 20-year medium-based medium-based medium-based medium-based medium-based medium-based medium-based medium-based medium-based medium-based medium-based medium-based medium-based program to be shared with 1/100 of the above program.”

B. Summary of P2P method

(1) In general, the Internet is composed of a server that provides information and a server that requests information (Sver, most web site operators) and a camera that requests information. While the former network method (Sber - Clorate method) is an internet user’s receipt of various information stored in a server by accessing the server (Sber personal, ser-to-peer). However, the P2P method is a network method that allows individual Internet users to exchange and share the files or data stored in the H2P drive on their own computer by allowing individual Internet users to hold the role of the existing server, thereby allowing individual Internet users to exchange and share the information directly (individual, peer-to-peer) without going through the server.

(2) While the existing network method is clearly distinguished between the sender and the addressee (i.e., uploading data to server, and downloading data from server). In P2P method, Internet users exchange information to both sides. In the case of P2P method, the file transmission is made directly between the users without the intervention of the server, so it is possible to share a file, and it is unnecessary to separately download the file to the server (i.e.,, moving a file to one’s own co-owned franchise in the P2P method).

(3) According to the role of a server, P2P method is largely divided into ① a type in which individual users intervene (such as “mix P2P” or “Hybid P2P”) to facilitate the inter-modal contact of individual users on the Internet, and ② a type in which users with similar performance computers (i.e., central server) file search is conducted without connecting each other (i.e., “P2P” or “P2P”). In the case of electronic data, the central server does not store music files, such as MP3, but rather, manages the list of such files on each user’s computer and receives data from the central server to receive data from the process of providing location information of the user’s wishes. However, it is not necessary to receive data from the central server’s own central network that can be searched by using the same as that of the user’s own computer network that can be searched. However, it is not necessary to receive data from the user’s own central network that can be searched.

① The representative examples falling under the above paragraph are the way of “tampers” in the United States of America. ② The examples falling under the above paragraph (1) are the way of “Stmita” adopted by the United States “Stmita” and ② the examples falling under the above sub-paragraph (b) are the way of “Fastck” adopted by the Netherlands’s “kicka” company.

(c) Details of provision of sound sea services and outline of related disputes;

(i)development of one program of a sound sea and the progress of relevant civil and criminal litigations;

(A) Around May 1999, a music file sharing P2P program, which was developed in the United States, led the P2P program, and the application Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 in the United States at the time of application in the United States (hereinafter “application Nonparty 1, etc.”) returned to Korea and developed a music sharing program.

(B) On May 18, 200, non-applicant 1 et al. completed the development of a sound sea program, on May 18, 200, opened the instant Internet site (http:/www.soriba.com) under the name of the “Suri Sea” and began to provide music file sharing services by distributing “Suri Sea Program” free of charge (the sound sea program developed at the time was “http” 1; hereinafter “Suri Sea 1”).

In the sound sea service based on the sound sea 1, if the central server of the sound sea directly manages the information necessary for connecting users, such as the user’s final access address, etc., and the user connects the sound sea server, the user immediately connects the user with the connection information of the immediately preceding connection user stored in the server. The user automatically transmitted the user’s connection information to the other sound sea users through the intellectual property address provided by the central server, and the user was downloaded by the computer of the other users who stored the MP3 file they want, connected with the other sound sea users.

(C) On January 18, 2001, non-applicant 1 et al. filed a complaint with music record producers on the ground that the provision of sound sea services based on the provision of sound sea 1 infringes on neighboring rights. On August of the same year, a complaint was filed by the music record producers under suspicion of violation of the Copyright Act (Seoul Central District Court 2001Kadan8336).

However, the first instance court of the above criminal case sentenced the dismissal of prosecution on May 15, 2003 on the grounds that the facts charged as to the non-applicant 1 et al. were not specified, and ② the appellate court rendered a judgment of non-applicant 1 et al. on January 12, 2005 (Seoul Central District Court 2003No4296), and ③ the prosecutor appeals and appeals against the judgment of the appellate court, and currently the above criminal case is pending in the final appeal.

(D) On the other hand, domestic and foreign producers of phonograms including the New Village Community Co., Ltd. filed an application for provisional disposition prohibiting the reproduction of music records against non-applicant 1, etc. around 2002 (No. 2002Kahap77). ① The above court accepted the application for provisional disposition on July 9, 2002, and rendered a provisional order ordering users to prohibit the business lines and downloads of MP3 files and to suspend the use of servers for sound sea services, etc. On the other hand, non-applicant 1, etc. (the above case of provisional disposition No. 2002Kahap2844) and the above court rejected the above provisional disposition on February 14, 2003 (the above case of preliminary disposition No. 2002Kahap2844). ② The appeal court rejected the above provisional order against non-applicant 1, etc. on the ground that the court rendered a second appeal against the above authorized judgment No. 2003Na11401, Mar. 1, 2015.

(ii)development of programs 2 and 3 by sound sea and the progress of related civil action;

(A) Non-applicant 1, etc. established a respondent company on November 5, 2003, when the civil and criminal litigation involving the 1st of the sound sea, and unlike the 1st of the sound sea, central server did not directly provide individual users with the IP addresses, etc., from among the sound sea users, let the computer of a good user in the Internet access situation keep the IP addresses of other users collected in the process of using the sound sea, and distributed two programs of the method of enabling the users who attempted to search the files to play the role of "Superpe" in the distribution of IP addresses to the users who attempted to search the files [b)] among the P2P methods listed in paragraph (3) of the above subparagraph (b) of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 1st of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd sea.

(B) Accordingly, the Korea Music Institute Association of 206 (wholly amended by Act No. 8101, Dec. 28, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the “former Copyright Act”) asserted that the respondent company filed an application for provisional injunction against the infringement of neighboring rights by individual users as its distributors and operators of sound sea 204, and that the respondent company did not file an application for provisional injunction against the infringement of neighboring rights by 30 or more of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (Seoul District Court Decision 2004Kahap3491, Aug. 29, 2005; hereinafter referred to as the “producer Association”) with the Ministry of Culture and Tourism for provisional injunction against the infringement of neighboring rights by 30 or more of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, which was authorized by the Minister of Culture and Tourism to be entrusted with neighboring rights by 30 or more of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and that the Respondent company did not file an application for provisional injunction against the infringement of neighboring rights by 30 or more of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism users.

On the other hand, on November 2005, after the decision of provisional disposition was made on the Respondent 3rd of the sound sea and the suspension of the sound sea service was made, the respondent expressed that the Respondent will provide the "open Sea", a P2P service that does not participate in the media.

(d) Payment progress of sound sea services and development of the program of this case;

(1) On December 2005, under the supervision of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (copyright department), which is the relevant department, discussions on measures for infringement of neighboring rights, etc. due to P2P services, etc. between online content suppliers, such as respondent companies, P2P companies, and the Korea Music Copyright Association (hereinafter “Korea Copyright Association”), the Korean Federation of Arts Performers’ Organizations (hereinafter “MM”) and producers’ associations, etc. and related organizations, such as music copyright-related organizations, companies, etc. In addition, since February 2006, the respondent company entered into a contract for the provision of music costs with music producers, including members of the producer’s associations.

(2) On the other hand, the respondent added the so-called "cating technology" to realize the settlement of money to the right holder of a fee-sharing file and the prohibition of sharing of files that are not permitted by the right holder, using the previous sound sea 3 program as measures for infringement of neighboring rights that have been pointed out as a problem of the sound sea service, and the respondent added the so-called "cating technology" to realize the settlement of money to the right holder of a fee-sharing file and the prohibition of sharing of files that are not permitted by the right holder to the right holder, and ② If the right holder's request for the protection of the sound sources which have not been drawn through the cating technology, the "cat file certification system" to protect the sound sources which have been distributed, and ③ adopting the so-called "digital mark system" to include information that can be certified in the future in the press or V2 T, and the sound program development of the sea (hereinafter referred to as the "marine broadcasting program").

On February 2, 2006, the respondent company resumed the sound sea service which had been interrupted after the provisional disposition decision with respect to the 3rd of the sound sea under the name of the betast of the sound sea service based on the instant program, and continued to provide the sound sea service on the ground of the collection of the hh value of the sound source for pening, which was developed by the Korean Electronic Communication Research Institute (ETRI), the government-funded research institute for the two-month test period.

(3) After initiating the beta of the sound sea service based on the instant program, the respondent was requested by producers of music records, etc. to take measures to prevent infringement of neighboring rights, such as prohibition of sharing of musical resources, etc. by the respondent. While the respondent was willing to conduct pening from April 2006 through the period of preparation, such as the collection of hh values for the application of the writtening technology, the respondent continued to be urged from producers of music records as it failed to comply with the foregoing.

On July 6, 2006, under the supervision of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism copyright and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism on July 6, 2006, 16 P2P service companies, including respondent companies, and copyright-related organizations such as copyright associations, and online music service companies, "p2P site pay-making plenary meeting" was discussed about P2P pay (technology dra, methods of collecting royalty, timing of pay-making, etc.) and control measures against illegal sound sources on P2P. At the same time, the respondent company stated that it should completely pay the sound sea services on July 10 of the same year and start pening at the same time, and thereafter, the company provided the sound sea service based on the program of this case on July 10 of the same year.

E. Method and Dongjak-gu using sound sea services based on the instant program

(1) The use method and Dongjak-gu as a P2P program of the instant program are the same in terms of sound sea 3 and its basic point, and the outlined content is as follows.

(A) A person wishing to use a sound sea service shall establish the instant program connected to the instant Internet site and distributed free of charge by the respondent company and register it as a sound sea member after entering the ID, password, basic personal information, etc., and then, shall designate “shared Pool” and “Rod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod 3 with another Pod Pod Pod Pod Pod Po.

(B) If a user who has completed the installation of the instant program executes the program, the screen is first displayed by the sound sea, and if that user completes the program by inputting his ID and passwords, he shall immediately transmit automatic connection signals to the computer of other users who play a key role at the same time connected to the instant Internet site, which is easy to access, and Schlage computers that received the said signal automatically transmit information from other users, such as IP addresses, to the user’s computer.

(C) The instant program installed on a user’s computer, upon the user’s request for a search, by entering the words, such as singing title or virtual name, into the search windows of a sound sea site, is sent individually to the other sound sea users via the IP address provided by the other users’ Schlage. Then, the instant program of the other users who received the above search language is sent to the user’s computer of the user who requested a search if it finds a file consistent with the search terms requested as above by searching the co-user in his/her own computer hard disc and searching the co-ownership of the above search terms. However, unlike the previous sound sea program, it is transmitted to the user’s computer of the user who requested a search.

(D) The instant program by the user requesting the search, by reconcing the file information that other users responded to, and showing the list of the search results immediately after 2,3 seconds from the time when the search was directed. This is indicated by the file name, singing title, number, file name, file size, sound quality, singing time, singing time, and speed (vis time for response), and the user requesting the search may display the list of the search results in the order of the search results using automatic display function in such a way as to be desired, such as speed, size, and sound quality.

(e) If a user requesting search requests a MP3 file that wishes to be downloaded out of the list as a result of the above search, the name and “the state” of the file designated on the right-hand page of the list is indicated. In such cases, ① In a case where the designated file is confirmed to be a sound source file for which the right-holder requests to refrain from sharing, “the state” shall be indicated as “camping,” and the file shall not be downloaded, and ② in a case where the designated file is confirmed to be a sound source file that the right-holder entered into a contract for the supply of the sound source between the respondent and the company, “the state” shall be indicated as “fee,” and ③ in a case of the other sound source file, the number of files can be downloaded only by the user’s multiple files, and “the state” shall be indicated as “the time or rate transmitted,” and when the file is stored by the user’s multiple files to be stored directly with the relevant computer network, regardless of a paid member or free member, the number of files can be collected by the user’s.

(F) The respondent provided the same sound sea service, and when the users close the search windows to terminate the sound sea, the respondent selected some of the users who share the sound sea service on the closed screen and provided the right to use free, and if they want to share it, the respondent would cause the users to use the sound sea service to maintain the file sharing state.

(G) As can be seen, the respondent company should join as a paid member of the company in order to download the sound source file (hereinafter referred to as the “state” in the “state”). The respondent company is operating a monthly fixed amount of KRW 4,000 per month (the initial fixed amount was KRW 3,00,000 per month, but the monthly fixed amount was increased to KRW 4,000 on July 2007). In the case of paid members, the respondent can freely download the “paid file” during the period in which the paid member is a paid member, and the user may use it permanently without any additional amount even after the expiration of the paid member period.

(2) The technical measures, which are prepared in addition to the previous sound sea program in the instant program, are as follows.

(A) Handing technology;

(i) Mash (Hash) value comparison technology

In relation to the target sound source file, it is also called a humh (in which Hash is a single type of computer encryption technology) and a dump (in which the humpestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestest is to create the humpestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestest (in which the humpestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestestest). The humpestestestestestestests is to be created by applying the humphdestestestestestestestestestestestestestestest ("hum") to the target sound source file, and by judging the same amount of the corresponding sound source when the users make a request for the download of the sound source file.

(ii) Audio Fringer Pring technology.

The sound source files distributed in P2P may be the originals provided by music record manufacturing, but it is known that there are a considerable number of general users to record the original CD, broadcasting, and the Internet secondaryly from the original CDs.) have a variety of modified files due to different recording environments and compressed rates, etc. It is not easy to detect the modified files which have continuously been created and to extract their hash values and add them to the database. Therefore, it is difficult to make it easy to add them to the database.

In order to supplement the limitation of the high sea value comparison technology, “music-type database” in which copyright protection is required is accumulated is to build a “music-type database” in the sound sea server, and to additionally analyze the sound source files which have not been seen from the high sea value comparison technology, and finally determine whether to allow the final download by comparison with the music text of the database. On the confirmation of the identity of the sound source at the stage of music recognition, if the identity of the sound source is verified, it is to create the hash value of the relevant sound source files, and then store the sound source at the “sea value database,” and thereafter, to ensure that the relevant sound source is conducted at the stage of comparison with the high sea value.

(iii) a passive writing method;

The covering technology of sound sea services based on the instant program is stored in the database (e.g., the easy value DB and music recognition DB), and the files requested by the user are in the database, which are prohibited from downloading if the files are located in the database, and so-called passive pening method allowing downloads if the files requested by the user are not in the database. If a passive pening method is applied, the running rate is affected by the reliability of sound type technology or the chain of business in the database, and in particular, with respect to new sound source and modified files, it is difficult to immediately respond to the relevant original file information.

(b) the green file system;

The green file system is a file certification system developed by the respondent company itself, and its content is that right holders such as music record producers who did not enter into a music source supply contract with the respondent company provide the respondent with online music information to the respondent so that the relevant music source file can be downloaded.

In order for copyright holders to use the respondent's green file system, ① after being admitted as online members, the respondent must submit to the respondent a written application, certificate of seal imprint, copy of business registration certificate, transcript of corporate register, and documents which can recognize the right to copyrighted works, and join as a member company of the respondent company after obtaining approval from the respondent by the respondent. ② With respect to a sound source file which is already searched from sound sea services, the relevant file shall be registered as a green file immediately, and with respect to a newly sold sound source, the right holder shall register the sound source file online and then obtain approval from the respondent.

(C) Digital Networkmark technology

The digital sign may be classified as one of the technologies to protect the rights of digital content owners, because it inserting any codes such as ID (ID) or information that can only be known to the right holder in digital contents, or inserting any specific code or type into a new code, such as image and voice, etc., or refers to such technology. However, it is still possible to confirm information on the distribution channel of the file in question, and it seems that it does not have any function to prevent illegal sharing or reproduction of the file itself, which is currently employed by the respondent company.

(f) Status of use of sound sea services, trends in the domestic music record market, etc.;

(1) Due to the characteristics of the sound sea service by P2P method, the number of users connected to the network increases by implementing the instant program. At the time of the decision of provisional disposition with respect to the 1-sea, the number of registered members of the sound sea service is about 4.5 million, the average number of visitors per day was about 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or more than 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00.

On October 31, 2006, it is known that the number of members of the sound sea service is more than 15 million, and about 1.3 million people have used the sound sea service for charge after pay.

The respondent company relied on the sound source file sharing service based on P2P method when it provides sound sea service based on sound sea 1. However, from July 2004 when it provided sound sea service by sound sea 3, it has expanded and operated the Internet site of this case in the form of online shopping mall, film and cartoons pay service, mobile service such as Belgium, and news, etc. It is currently operating the portal site. At present, the respondent company at the Internet site of this case, in addition to the file sharing service based on the program of this case at the Internet site of this case, it is the web hard service (the web site of this case, which is a storage space of certain capacity, stored, perused, and perused documents or files it works together with the Internet environment at any place without a diskettes, and provides Internet file management system that enables sharing of large numbers of people and files, which is for storage of MP3 files and sale of MP30 file files and for each user's right to prevent reproduction of MD 30, etc.

(2) The scale of the domestic music market has maintained the growth rate of KRW 353 billion on the basis of the total turnover in 1998, KRW 380 billion in 199, KRW 410.4 billion in 2000, KRW 373.3 billion in 2001, KRW 286.1 billion in 2002, KRW 183.3 billion in 2003, KRW 133.3 billion in 204, KRW 133.8 billion in 2005, and KRW 108.7 billion in 200, KRW 2002, KRW 203.4 billion in Korea, the scale of the domestic digital music industry (class 13.3 billion in 2001, KRW 203.4 billion in 2038 billion in 203.4 billion in 203 billion in 205.

(g) The current status of pening of sound sea services;

(1) According to the materials submitted by the applicant, through the sound sea service on August 1, 2006, which was after the respondent company conducted the full-payment of the sound sea service, the applicant 2 attempted to download 1621 through the sequence 1621 to 1630 of the [Attachment 1] list “2. 2. Applicant 2 (Applicant 2)” (the neighboring right holder), 1621 to 1630 of the total 10 of the above 10 files searched through the sound sea service, while a large number of files related to the above 10 files searched through the sound sea service were stored, but as a result, the above 10 files were searched, which are not covered with all the above 10 files, and as a result, the above 10 files could be downloaded free of charge.

(2) The Copyright Protection Center affiliated with the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (Dong Center was transferred to the Federation of Korea Copyright Organizations) around March 2007. On July 26, 2006, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism published the analysis that, as a result of continuous monitoring conducted after pay-off of sound sea services, the respondent company has neglected to pay-free downloading on the ground of 24 hours and at the same time 24 hours, and the other companies that distribute only registered contents or block the sharing of sound source files are no choice but to suffer relatively damages if such respondent's action continues, and then announced the results of the analysis that it is possible to collect 30% of the total number of 7 days from January 24 of the same year to February 24, 2007, 206 to 30% of the total number of 9% of the total 9% of the total 36% of the total 90% of the total 36% of the total 36% of the total 90% of the total 36% of the total 36% of the total r.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Summary of the petitioner's assertion

(1) Unlike the sound sea services that were based on the instant program, the respondent company’s sound sea services are taking a method of actively participating in the file sharing by the Central server operated by the respondent company, unlike the sound sea services that were based on the sound sea 1, 2, and 3 previously developed, the respondent company is liable as joint tortfeasor of consultation with users who infringe the applicant’s neighboring rights due to the file sharing using sound sea services.

(2) Even if not, the sound sea service based on the instant program performs the function of aiding and abetting users to infringe their neighboring rights, and the respondent providing the sound sea service cannot be exempted from its aiding and abetting liability. The respondent’s aiding and abetting act in relation to the infringement of neighboring rights is closely related to the infringement of neighboring rights, and the respondent does not take measures that facilitate the infringement while the respondent is aware of such infringement, and such aiding and abetting act may eliminate the infringement of neighboring rights by suspending such aiding and abetting act. Thus, the respondent may seek against the respondent the injunction against infringement under the Copyright Act.

(3) Although the respondent company added technical measures to prevent copyright infringement, such as routing technology, in sound sea services based on the instant program, the respondent company cannot be deemed to fall under the grounds for exemption under Article 102(2) of the current Copyright Act (Article 77(2) of the former Copyright Act).

(4) Furthermore, in light of the damage suffered by the applicants due to infringement of neighboring rights and the developments leading up to the provision of sound sea services based on the program of this case, the application for provisional disposition of this case is deemed necessary to preserve. Accordingly, upon the application of this case seeking to prevent infringement of neighboring rights and prevent infringement of neighboring rights, provisional disposition written in the purport of the application shall be issued to the respondent.

B. Summary of the respondent company's assertion

(1) On July 10, 2006, the respondent company, under the supervision of the copyright with the Ministry of Culture and Tourism from December 2, 2005, conducted payment for P2P services by online music service providers, including three copyright associations related to music copyright, the Federation of Performers, producers' associations, producers' associations and respondent companies, etc., on several occasions of the attendance at the joint meeting, after which the online music service providers, including those providing P2P services including the respondent company. As such, as long as the respondent company has conducted payment by yield and compromise through long-term consultation with the relevant interested parties presented by the government, even if any loss occurs to the applicant, this may compensate for such loss. Thus, there is no right to seek compensation for damages in the future.

(2) In addition, the respondent company does not want to develop the program of this case to facilitate the infringement of users' neighboring rights, but rather, it prevents copyright infringement by realizing the prohibition of sharing or the limitation on sharing through pening through the program of this case, and in fact, it complies with the "98% guidelines" presented by the Copyright Association, etc. in the process of paid-in-chargeing, work without any technical problems, and according to the green file system, which is a complementary measure prepared by the respondent company, a lot of users who did not receive sound sources after pay-in-camping and pening, resisting against the respondent company or requesting refund can lead to realizing 10% pening. As such, it is difficult to say that the respondent company is liable for aiding and abetting the infringement of neighboring rights by sound sea users. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent company is liable for aiding and abetting the infringement of neighboring rights.

(3) Article 102(2) of the current Copyright Act (Article 77(2) of the former Copyright Act) provides that online service providers shall be exempted if they intend to prevent or suspend reproduction or transmission of copyrighted works, etc. but technically impossible. The protection measures, such as “negativeing method,” which the respondent takes, have taken technical measures to protect the rights required in P2P services, and even if the neighboring rights of the producers of the instant copyrighted works were infringed by sound sea services based on the instant program, they shall be exempted pursuant to the said provision (Article 77(2) of the former Copyright Act).

(4) Even if the applicants suffered any loss due to the sound sea service by the instant program, the instant application for provisional disposition does not need to be preserved. Therefore, the instant application for provisional disposition is unreasonable (the specific assertion is deemed to be "decision on the necessity of preservation of 4.4.).

3. Determination on the right to be preserved

A. Whether the respondent company’s duty not to infringe neighboring rights arises

(1) Whether users’ neighboring rights are infringed

The applicants claim that the respondent company is responsible for the infringement of neighboring rights of the users on the premise that the infringement of neighboring rights of the applicants is caused by the sharing of the files by the sound sea service users, and first, we examine whether the sound sea users infringe neighboring rights of the producers of this case.

(A) Infringement of the right of reproduction

Based on facts, the act of a sound sea service user accessing the computer of other users and storing each of the sound source files of this case (MP3 files) in the hard disks, etc. on his own computer constitutes an act of infringing the right of reproduction of the phonogram producer, as it is the act of fixing sound in tangible objects (see Article 2 subparag. 22 of the Copyright Act).

(B) Infringement of transmission right

In addition, if individual users download each of the sound source files of this case through a sound sea service and store them in a downloader, the downloader in the program of this case concurrently holds a sharing platform, and as long as the users maintain access to the sound sea service, the other users are already in a position to download the relevant file. This is the act of providing copyrighted works for other users who are connected to the sound sea service to access the time and place of their own choice (see Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Copyright Act).

(2) Evaluation of sound sea services of the respondent company

Then, this paper examines whether the respondent company is responsible for the above infringement under the circumstances where the individual users of the sound sea service violated the applicant's right of reproduction and transmission among neighboring rights to each sound source of this case through the program of this case.

(A) Whether the agreement constitutes joint tort liability

1) First, we examine the respondent company's assertion that it is liable for joint tort under Article 760(1) of the Civil Act with its users regarding infringement of neighboring rights by sound sea users.

2) In order to establish a mistake and a joint tort under Article 760(1) of the Civil Act, it is not necessary between the actors to share the common intent or common perception of the act. However, it should be deemed that the infringement of rights against the victim was jointly committed and that the act was common cause for the occurrence of damages. In addition, each act should constitute an independent tort.

In this case, the respondent company's sound and sea service using the program of this case is based on the program of this case which is distributed free of charge by the respondent company. The infringement of neighboring rights of the users is naturally done by the respondent company after accessing the Internet site of this case operated by the respondent company. However, the infringement of neighboring rights of each of the music sources of this case is actually done by using the sound and sea service of the respondent company. The central server, which is not directly managed by the respondent, does not participate in the infringement of neighboring rights of the respondent, and it is done between the users at the request of the respondent's computer. Although the above program of this case, it is difficult for the applicant company to provide the above service to the extent that it is difficult for the applicant company to independently conclude the contract on the infringement of neighboring rights of the applicant company's own as well as the cost-based service, such as the cost-based service that the applicant company has entered into an infringement of neighboring rights of the applicant company's sound and neighboring rights to the extent that it is difficult to independently supply the original copy and the cost-based service.

(B) Whether aiding and abetting liability for tort is established

1) Next, we examine the argument that the respondent's act of distributing the instant program free of charge and providing sound sea services based thereon constitutes quasi-helping act by facilitating users' infringement of neighboring rights of the applicants, which are producers of the instant phonograms.

2) The act of aiding and abetting the infringement of the right of reproduction under the Copyright Act refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate the infringement of the right of reproduction of another person. It is possible to assist the infringement of the right of reproduction as well as assist the infringement by negligence. In aiding and abetting and abetting by negligence refers to the act of violating the right of reproduction under the premise that the content of the negligence has a duty of care not to assist the infringement of the right of reproduction. In aiding and abetting and abetting such infringement, the aided and abetting do not need to be specifically aware of the date and place where the infringement of the right of reproduction is carried out, the object of reproduction, etc., and the identity of the actual performer is not definitely recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da11626, Jan. 25, 2007, etc.). Such legal principle also applies to aiding and abetting the infringement of the right of reproduction.

In general, the file sharing system based on the P2P method (hereinafter “P2P system”) covers all unspecified and large numbers of users who access the pertinent P2P service. The file providing act, namely, the file download access to P2P service by the user holding the pertinent file, is natural, and the file receipt act, i.e., the file downloading network, takes place at the same time and at the same time with all users who requested the downloading network due to the characteristics of the Internet, the possibility of infringement of neighboring rights by the user’s unauthorized circulation of copyrighted works in the digital form is always open, but even if that is, the P2P system and its operators are not uniform users to bear the responsibility for aiding and abetting infringement, such as neighboring rights, such as neighboring rights, even if the operator can easily participate in the act of sharing and exchanging files in the process of providing the P2P service, and whether the operator can easily obtain the user’s benefits, such as how and how to obtain it, and how to do so, how and how to do so, and whether the operator’s benefits can be recognized in accordance with the P2P system’s duty of protecting rights.

3) In the instant case, as to whether the respondent is responsible for aiding and abetting the infringement of neighboring rights by individual users using the sound sea service, the functions and developments of the instant program related to this point, including neighboring rights added to the instant program, and the details of paid-in policy for the sound sea service are as follows.

① Objectives and function of the instant program

The instant program is a P2P program, like the previous sound sea 1, 2, and 3, developed for the purpose of sharing only music files (MP3 files) and has the function of easily searching and sharing available files, such as the function of selecting a file with a high speed of downloading and high level of sound, etc.

② Development developments of the instant program

The non-applicant 1 et al. provided a sound sea service based on the original sound sea 1, and the non-applicant 1 et al. argued against the provisional disposition order on the ground that there is a aided responsibility for aiding and abetting infringement of neighboring rights (the July 2002) and against the provisional disposition order, appeal, appeal, etc., and on the other hand, the respondent has established the respondent company (the November 2003) and the Respondent has continuously provided the sound sea service. However, the provisional disposition order was issued on the ground that there is a aided and abetting liability for infringement of neighboring rights (the August 2005) on the ground that the Respondent has the responsibility for aiding and abetting infringement of neighboring rights (the Respondent). On the other hand, the Respondent would provide the "open sound sea" which is not involved by the Respondent company, and eventually, the Respondent would develop the program of this case by adding technologies for preventing infringement of neighboring rights, etc. based on the Mada 3, and eventually, the Respondent would develop the program of this case.

③ Technologies preventing neighboring rights infringement added to the instant program

The program of this case is a technical measure against infringement of neighboring rights in the previous sound sea 1, 2, and 3, and is equipped with the one as a measure to supplement the pening technology and the one as a measure to supplement the pening technology and the one as a digital unit mark system.

i) First of all, the respondent company's writing technology and music recognition technology as seen earlier is its content. According to the result of monitoring by the Copyright Coordination and Mediation Committee established under the Ministry of Culture and Tourism or monitoring data submitted by the applicants during the period of the instant case, it is confirmed that neighboring rights holders like each of the instant sound source, as well as the sound source where neighboring rights holders requested the prohibition of sharing, have not been properly conducted. This is because there is a modified file that does not take place with the respondent, the respondent company's pening technology itself has yet to be fully completed, and the applicant's booking method is almost 0 per cent of the total cost, and the applicant's booking method adopted by the respondent does not allow only the applicant to share the sound source (i.e., the establishment of a new database by the right holders) but also the establishment of a new database is not limited to the case where the applicant's booking method is relatively less than 2 per cent of the total cost and the applicant's new database is not limited to the case.

ii) Then, in order to supplement the passive writing system adopted by the respondent company, this is the file certification system that the respondent company has developed by itself, and its content is to prohibit the file sharing after requesting the Respondent company to actively provide his/her own sound source information, i.e., to the Respondent company, and allowing the Respondent company to prohibit the file sharing through the approval procedure of the Respondent company.

iii) In addition, digital warranty technology has a function to protect the rights of the owner of digital contents, and ultimately, up to now, it can only be able to verify information on the distribution channel of the relevant file, and it does not have a function to prevent illegal sharing or reproduction of the file itself.

(4) Consideration for sound marine services based on the instant program

The sound sea services based on the instant program are provided on the premise of a full-time fee-charging, unlike the previous sound sea program. At present, a “right to use” at the rate of KRW 4,00 per month is acquired as a fee-charging member by purchasing a “right to use,” and if a fee-charging member becomes a fee-charging member, the sound members, which entered into a contract for the supply of the sound source, may be additionally downloaded compared with a free member. In such cases, the sound source file received one set is not attached with a separate protective device (DM), and even after the expiration of the period prescribed in the right to use, the sound source can continue to be reproduced regardless of the number of times after the expiration of the period prescribed in the right to use the sound source, and the sound source “pay” can be collected as a fee-charging member without restriction.

4) In full view of all the circumstances such as the purpose and function of the program of this case, development developments and other technical measures that the respondent company deemed to have been equipped for the protection of neighboring rights, etc., and its writinging status, etc., and the management status of sound and sea services of the respondent company including payization, although the program of this case is currently equipped with technical measures and systems for the protection of neighboring rights, it is currently being taken by the respondent company, and at the request of the right holder such as neighboring rights, the respondent company is requested from the right holder such as neighboring rights, or the company has already established as a prohibition of sharing by the respondent only for the sound and source files in which the respondent company is already established as a prohibition of sharing, and the infringement of neighboring rights by the applicants has continued to occur in the future, and it is difficult to see that the respondent's neighboring rights infringement against each of the sound sources of this case or its neighboring rights infringement has been committed by the respondent, or that there is no reason to see that the respondent's duty to protect neighboring rights or its neighboring rights infringement has been committed against the respondent's right infringement.

(3) Occurrence of a claim such as suspension of infringement against the respondent company

Furthermore, Article 123(1) of the Copyright Act provides that the other party to the claim for the suspension of infringement shall be “a person who infringes on copyright or other rights protected under this Act” and even in aiding and abetting infringement, considering the content and nature of aiding and abetting act, the degree of management and control of the aided and abetting person, profits generated by the aided and abetting person, etc., the aiding and abetting act is closely related to the relevant copyright infringement, and the aided and abetting person does not take measures to prohibit and facilitate such act while recognizing the infringement, and where the aided and abetting act can remove the state of copyright infringement by stopping the aiding and abetting act, the aided and abetting person shall be deemed to fall under “the person who infringes on copyright or other rights protected under this Act” and “the person who infringes on the copyright or other rights protected under this Act,” according to the facts acknowledged above. In light of the above, the Respondent’s content of the Respondent’s sound sea service based on the instant program, the possibility to control the infringement of neighboring rights by the Respondent company, and the Respondent company may seek the status of infringement by aiding and abetting act.

B. Determination of the respondent company's exemption claim

The respondent asserts that, even if the respondent is responsible for aiding and abetting the infringement of neighboring rights by individual users using the above sound sea service, and the respondent company has fully implemented technical measures that are possible to prevent infringement of neighboring rights, such as singing technology, in providing the sound sea service based on the instant program, so in such a case, the respondent company is exempted from aiding and abetting liability in accordance with Article 102 (2) of the Copyright Act, which provides for the exemption of online service provider.

(1) Amendment of the relevant laws and regulations

(A) Part of the Copyright Act of 2003 (amended by Act No. 6881 of May 27, 2003, from July 1, 2003)

▷ 위 개정 법률에서는 ‘온라인서비스제공자’의 정의규정을 두고, 인터넷을 통한 제3자의 저작권 침해시 온라인서비스제공자가 일정한 요건을 갖춘 경우에는 면책받을 수 있도록 하는 등 그 책임범위를 명확히 하는 규정을 신설하였다{온라인서비스제공자의 개념 규정은 컴퓨터프로그램보호법 개정 법률(2002. 12. 30. 법률 제6843호)에 의하여 도입된 개념 규정을 토대로 한 것이다}. 관련 규정의 내용은 다음과 같다.

Article 2 (Definitions) The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

22. The term “online service provider” means a person who provides other persons with a service that enables them to reproduce or transmit works, stage performances, music records, broadcasts or database through an information and communications network (referring to the information and communications network as defined in Article 2 (1) 1 of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection

* Article 2 (Definitions) of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc.

(1) The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. The term "information and communications network" means an information and communications system for collecting, processing, storing, searching, transmitting, or receiving information by using telecommunications equipment and facilities under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Framework Act on Telecommunications or by utilizing telecommunications equipment and facilities, computers, and technologies for the use of computers;

* Article 2 (Definitions of Framework Act on Telecommunications)

2. The term "telecommunications facilities and equipment" means machinery, appliances, lines for telecommunications, and other facilities and equipment necessary for telecommunications;

Chapter 5 2 Restrictions on the liability of online service providers

Article 77 (Restriction on Responsibility of Online Service Providers)

(1) Where an online service provider has prevented or suspended the reproduction or transmission concerned with the knowledge that the copyright and other rights protected by this Act are infringed due to the reproduction or transmission of works, etc. by other persons in connection with the provision of services related to the reproduction or transmission of works, performances, phonograms, broadcasts or database (hereafter referred to as "works, etc." in this Chapter), the responsibility of the online service provider for the infringement on copyright by other persons and other rights protected by this Act may be mitigated or exempted.

(2) Where an online service provider has known the fact that the reproduction or transmission of works, etc. by other persons is infringed on by the reproduction or transmission of works, etc. by other persons in connection with the provision of services related to the reproduction or transmission of works, etc., and intended to prevent or suspend the relevant reproduction or transmission, but technically impossible, the responsibility of the online service provider for the infringement on the copyright by other persons and other rights protected under this Act shall

Article 77-2 (Suspension of Reproduction or Forwarding)

(1) Any person who asserts that his/her copyright and other rights protected under this Act are infringed by the reproduction or transmission of works, etc. by using the services of an online service provider (hereafter in this Article referred to as "right claimant") may request the online service provider to suspend the reproduction or transmission of such works, etc. by clarifying such fact.

(2) Where an online service provider is demanded to suspend reproduction or transmission pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (1), he/she shall suspend the reproduction or transmission of the relevant works, etc. without delay, and notify the person who makes the reproduction or transmission of the relevant works, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "duplicating or interactive transmitter") of such fact.

(3) Where the reproducer or interactive transmitter who has been notified pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2) requests the resumption of his/her reproduction or interactive transmission by clarifying that his/her reproduction or interactive transmission is due to legitimate rights, the online service provider shall notify without delay the claimant to the right of the fact and the scheduled date of resumption, and have him/her resume the reproduction or interactive transmission on the scheduled date.

(4) An online service provider shall designate a person who is requested to suspend or resume the reproduction or interactive transmission pursuant to the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (3) (hereafter referred to as "recipient" in this Article) and shall give public notice so that persons who use his/her facilities or services can easily understand.

(5) Where the online service provider has made a public announcement under the provisions of paragraph (4), and has suspended or resumed the reproduction or transmission of relevant works, etc. under the provisions of paragraphs (2) and (3), the responsibility of the online service provider for the infringement on other persons’ copyright and other rights protected under this Act, and the responsibility of the online service provider for the damages incurred to the reproducer or transmitter, may be mitigated or exempted: Provided, That the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply from the time when the online service provider has known the fact that the reproduction or transmission of works, etc. by other persons infringes on the copyright and other rights protected under this Act, to the time of demanding the suspension under the provisions of paragraph (1).

(6) Any person who demands, without legitimate rights, the suspension or resumption of the reproduction or transmission of a work, etc. under the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (3) shall compensate for any losses incurred thereby.

(Omission)

(B) The current Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 8101 of Dec. 28, 2006, as amended by Act No. 8101 of Jun. 28, 2007)

▷ 위 전문 개정 법률은 권리주장자의 요구가 있는 경우에 온라인서비스제공자들이 보다 신속하게 저작물 등의 복제·전송을 중단하도록 그 복제·전송의 중단시기를 ‘지체 없이’에서 ‘즉시’로 개정하고, 온라인서비스제공자가 권리주장자의 요구에 따라 저작물 등의 복제·전송 중단사실을 권리주장자에게도 통보하도록 개정하는 등 온라인서비스제공자의 책임을 더욱 강화하는 한편, 다른 사람들 상호간에 컴퓨터 등을 이용하여 저작물 등을 전송하도록 하는 것을 주된 목적으로 하는 온라인서비스제공자를 별도로 ‘특수한 유형의 온라인서비스제공자’로 묶어 추가적 의무를 부과하는 내용의 규정을 신설하고( 제104조 ), 이를 위반할 경우에는 3,000만 원의 이하에 과태료에 처하도록 하고 있으며( 제142조 제1항 ), 영리를 위하여 상습적으로 저작권을 침해하는 경우를 종전의 친고죄에서 비친고죄로 변경하는 등( 제140조 ), 저작권 등의 침해방지를 강화하였다.

▷ 이와 같이 개정된 내용을 제외하고는 2003년 일부 개정 당시 신설된 규정들은 그 규정 내용을 그대로 유지하였으나 다만 그 규정들의 위치가 변경되었다( 구 저작권법 ‘제2조 제22호’ 는 현행 저작권법 ‘제2조 제30호 ’로, 구 저작권법 ‘제5장의2’는 현행 저작권법 ‘제6장’으로, 구 저작권법 ‘제77조’ 는 현행 저작권법 ‘제102조’ 로, 구 저작권법 ‘제77조의2’ 는 현행 저작권법 ‘제103조’ 로 각각 변경되었다). 주요 개정, 신설 규정은 다음과 같다.

Article 103 (Suspension of Reproduction or Forwarding)

(1) Article 77-2 (1) of the former Copyright Act.

(2) Where an online service provider is requested to suspend reproduction or transmission under the provisions of paragraph (1), he/she shall immediately suspend the reproduction or transmission of the relevant works, etc. and notify a person who makes the reproduction or transmission of the relevant works, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "duplicating or interactive transmitter") and a claimant to a right of such fact

(3) through (7) (The same as Article 77-2 (3) through (7) of the former Copyright Act)

Article 104 (Duties, etc. of Online Service Providers of Special Type)

(1) An online service provider who aims mainly at having other persons transmit works, etc. by using computers, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "online service provider of special type") shall take necessary measures, such as technical measures, etc. to block illegal forwarding of the relevant works, etc. upon request of the holder of right. In such cases, matters concerning the request of holder of right and necessary measures shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

(2) The Minister of Culture and Tourism may determine and announce the scope of online service providers of special types under the provisions of paragraph (1).

(C) Enforcement Decree of the Copyright Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 20135, Jun. 29, 2007)

Article 40 (Request for Suspension of Reproduction or Forwarding) A person who intends to request an online service provider to suspend reproduction or interactive transmission pursuant to Article 103 (1) of the Act (hereinafter referred to as "applicant for right") shall submit a written request (including a written request in an electronic document) stipulated by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, along with supporting documents (including electronic documents) falling under any of the following subparagraphs, to the online service provider: Provided, That where the claimant for right is a copyright trust management business provider or the claimant for right has already submitted supporting documents verifying that he/she is the holder of right regarding repetitive infringement within the last one year, he/she may submit

1. Copy of the certificate of registration indicating himself as the right holder of the work, etc. or materials corresponding thereto;

2. Copy of the work, etc. indicating his/her name, etc. or his/her well-known pseudonym, or the data corresponding thereto.

When a holder of a right intends to request necessary measures, such as technical measures that block illegal forwarding of the relevant work, etc. pursuant to Article 104 (1) of the Act, he/she shall submit a written request (including a written request in an electronic document) determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, along with the following data (including an electronic document) to the special type online service provider: Provided, That where the holder of a right is a copyright trust management business provider or there is a fact that the holder of a right has already already submitted data verifying that he/she is the holder of a right regarding repetitive infringement within the last one year, he/she may

1. Any of the following materials by which it is possible to vindicate that he/she is a right holder:

(a) Copy of the certificate of registration indicating himself as the right holder of his work, etc. or the data corresponding thereto;

(b) Copy of the work, etc. in which his/her name, etc. or second name is indicated, or the data corresponding thereto;

2. Title of a work by which it is possible to identify the work, etc. that have been requested to cut off, characters or signs corresponding thereto (hereinafter referred to as "title, etc.") or materials of reproductions, etc.

Article 46 (Necessary Measures, such as Technical Measures to Cut Off Illegal Forwarding)

(1) "Necessary measures, such as technical measures that block illegal forwarding of the relevant works, etc." in Article 104 (1) of the Act means all of the following measures:

1. Technical measures that enable people to recognize the works, etc. in comparison with their titles and features;

2. Measures of limiting search or transmission to cut off illegal transmission of the work, etc. that came to be recognized pursuant to subparagraph 1;

3. Where the illegal sender of the relevant work, etc. can be identified, the dispatch of a warning to the sender of the work, etc. requesting for the prohibition of infringement on copyright.

(2) Measures under paragraph (1) 1 and 2 shall be taken immediately upon request of a right-holder.

(2) Determination:

(A) Contents and purport of the exemption provision of online service providers under the Copyright Act

Article 102 (Article 77 of the former Copyright Act) of the same Act provides that the liability of “online service provider” shall be reduced or exempted in certain cases with respect to the act of reproduction or transmission by online service users, which are infringement of copyright, etc. In other words, even if a user infringes on a copyright, etc. due to the reproduction or transmission by using online service, where the online service provider knowingly knows that such infringement was committed and prevents or suspends the reproduction or transmission thereof, the online service provider may be exempted from liability due to such infringement (Article 102(1) of the Copyright Act). If the online service provider intended to prevent or block reproduction or transmission but it is technically impossible, the online service provider shall be exempted from liability due to such infringement (Article 102(2) of the same Act). In this context, the term “technical impossible” as the requisite exemption exemption under the Copyright Act is premised on maintaining the online service itself, and where it is deemed technical impossible for the online service provider to prevent or block reproduction or transmission by using the relevant online service provider’s reproduction or transmission of online services, etc.

In the lower court, as alleged by the respondent, I will examine whether the respondent is exempted from the responsibility for aiding and abetting the infringement of neighboring rights by sound sea users in accordance with the above exemption provision as the company takes technical measures to prevent or block the infringement of neighboring rights.

(B) Whether it constitutes online service provider of respondent company

First, we examine whether the respondent company that provides sound sea services based on the instant program constitutes “online service provider” as referred to in Article 102 of the Copyright Act.

An online service provider referred to in the above provision refers to a person who provides services that enable other persons to reproduce or transmit copyrighted works, stage performances, music records, broadcasting, or database through an information and communications network (Article 2 subparag. 30 of the Copyright Act). The information and communications network referred to in this provision is apparent in its literal sense that the information and communications network is not limited to the "self-defense" information and communications network of the relevant service provider. Thus, the case where a user provides file sharing, that is, a P2P service that directly connects the computer of the user, i.e., reproduction or transmission, also constitutes an online service provider under the above provision. Although, unlike the previous sound sea 1, 2, and 3 times in the sound sea service based on the program of this case, it is possible to conduct pening by the central server prior to the file sharing, i.e., the sharing, reproduction, and transmission of files are still conducted between the computers of the users through the program of this case. Thus, the company providing sound sea services based on the program of this case constitutes an "online

(C) Evaluation of technical measures added to the instant program

Then, I examine whether the respondent company can be deemed to have fully taken technical measures to prevent or block reproduction and transmission that infringe on the applicant's neighboring rights to each of the sound sources of this case by means of the technical measures added by the respondent company in the program of this case.

1) First of all, the respondent company developed the instant program as a countermeasure against the infringement of neighboring rights by users using sound sea services based on the previous programs 1, 2, and 3, and the introduction of the hume comparison technology and music recognition technology with the content thereof, and the introduction of the hume comparison technology and music recognition technology into the so-called passive pening method that the right holder does not want to share the hume and prohibits the sharing of the hume file, and ② a system to supplement the limit of the passive pening method, which is to supplement the limitation of the hume system, the right holder with the lume file system with the content that the lume may apply for and register the lume information that the lume does not wish to share the file to the company, ③ the digital uniting system that appears to be available to grasp the distribution channel of the lume.

2) However, despite the above technical measures taken by the respondent, since the respondent company still did not properly block the sharing of each of the sound sources of this case that the applicants had neighboring rights even after its commencement, and this is because the respondent company takes the "negativeing" method, which prohibits the sharing of the sound source files, only in the case where the right holders do not want to do so, because the respondent company's technological measures to prevent infringement of neighboring rights, such as the "negativeing" and the system of digital networking or digital networking as supplementary measures, are not available to the applicant company, and it is difficult for the respondent to take such active measures as preventing infringement of neighboring rights. Thus, it is insufficient to acknowledge the so-called "technical measures to prevent infringement of neighboring rights" as being available to the applicant company, and the method of taking measures to prevent or block infringement of neighboring rights, such as the so-called "defensing of original data" and the method of taking measures to prevent the infringement of neighboring rights by the applicant company, and it is difficult to find the two different methods to be applied to the request of the applicant company.

(D) As to the respondent company's other arguments regarding affirmative and passive writing methods

1) On this basis, the Respondent Company takes the unique characteristics of P2P services such as direct file sharing between users, unlike general web services, only creates a space where Respondents and downloads are available, and does not store sound sources in servers, as a matter of principle, the sharing of P2P services is restricted by applying the technology of Respondents exceptionally for the protection of copyright, etc. As such, the Respondent’s technical measures such as Respondent’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-holder’s right-ownership.

2) We examine the above argument of the respondent company in turn.

A) First, considering the characteristics of P2P services, the technical measures to prevent or block the infringement of neighboring rights by the user’s file sharing should be “negativeing method” (the foregoing assertion 1).

First of all, in the sound marine service of this case, P2P service, the respondent company only created a space where the service provider can download and download the sound source file (MP3 file) and did not hold the file in the server, and the sharing of the file is characterized by the direct sharing between the computer of the users. However, as alleged by the respondent company, it is difficult to say that technical measures for the protection of copyright, etc. must be passive in the P2P service, as argued by the respondent company, it is difficult to say that the P2P service should be done in the P2P service (the prior commercialization of P2P service, such as copyright, etc., has already been made in the form of active pening method). Considering the circumstances that the act of sharing the file without the involvement of the service provider is done between the users, the respondent company's liability for P2P service provider should not be reduced or exempted under certain conditions as provided in our Copyright Act, and therefore, it is not reasonable to accept the concept of the P2P service provider's right to protection in the P2P service.

B) We examine as to the respondent's assertion (the above argument) that the active writinging method goes against the principle of excessive prohibition as a measure prohibiting the sharing of a creative production of an individual, such as content produced by users, or a free file in copyright (UCC).

i) Free content in copyright including personal creations, such as content produced by users (UCC) distributed in the Internet space including P2P services cited by the respondent company can be divided into content in which the right holders, such as producers, etc. who have created the relevant content, have reserved the exercise of their rights such as copyright, etc. on their own creation, and content in which the right holders are unable to assert their rights due to the lapse of the protection period of rights. In the case of the former, the content producers, etc. can first be set up a separate space for making up the contents in which the right holders, such as the pertinent content producers, etc. waive their rights or intend to withhold their exercise of rights within the P2P services, or the content that the right holders, such as the right holders would have been able to confirm their intent in the P2P services. However, it seems that it would be difficult to freely conclude that the right holder's right should be set up in the P2P service policy and that the online service provider's right should not be freely set up and freely set up in the P2P service provider's online service, etc.

ii) In full view of the above circumstances and the circumstances substantiated by the supporting materials of this case, as alleged by the respondent, the sound sea service of this case contains mixed files that are permitted to be distributed by the previous right holder and the files that are not so, and the files that may have been shared by the users have been operated as the advantages of finding out the copyright, etc., but the respondent's continued provision of the sound sea service even after being aware of the fact that the illegal file sharing continues as alleged by the above, becomes the basis for aiding and abetting the infringement of neighboring rights of the individual users in this case. However, in a situation where the amendment of the law that allows the users to be exempted from liability as a service provider with respect to the infringement of neighboring rights of the users, etc., if meeting certain requirements, it cannot be deemed as an exemption from liability under Article 102 (2) of the Copyright Act, on the premise that the situation where the file sharing was made in violation of neighboring rights of this case, based only on the nature of P2P service, which is a natural feature of P2P service.

iii) Therefore, the respondent company's above argument (2) also has no reason or reason.

C) On the premise that the Copyright Act, etc. imposes certain responsibilities such as the burden of vindication on the part of the claimant as the right holder on the premise of demanding the prevention of infringement on the online service provider under the premise that the technical measures such as the “negativeing method” and the “live file system” adopted by the respondent company are consistent with the attitude of the Copyright Act, and in fact, it is possible to achieve 10% pening due to such technical measures (see the aforementioned assertion).

i) As to Article 103 of the Copyright Act, which provides for the right holder's request for reproduction and transmission to an online service provider, Article 103(1) of the Copyright Act provides that a person who claims that his/her right is infringed due to the reproduction and transmission of works, etc. using the services of the online service provider may demand the online service provider to suspend the reproduction and transmission of the relevant works, etc. by explaining the relevant facts. Paragraph (2) provides that the online service provider shall immediately suspend the reproduction and transmission of the relevant works, etc. where the request for the suspension of reproduction and transmission is made pursuant to Paragraph (1). Paragraph (4) provides that an online service provider shall designate a person who is requested for the suspension of reproduction and transmission under Paragraph (1) and notify him/her so that the users of facilities or services can easily understand. Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree of the Copyright Act provides that the claimant for right shall submit to the online service provider a written request as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, accompanied by documents, such as a copy of the registration certificate, etc.

However, according to the above provisions, it should be deemed that the above provisions stipulate prompt and simplified procedures for remedying rights and requirements for using such procedures for the infringement of the rights of the online service provider on behalf of the copyright holder by using online services. In other words, “request for suspension of reproduction or transmission” under Article 103 of the Copyright Act means the requirement for prompt and simplified remedy procedures for the holder of rights to directly request the suspension or transmission of copyrighted works, etc. to the online service provider without going through trial. As the respondent claims, the above provision provides for the requirement for suspension of reproduction or transmission, namely, “request for suspension of reproduction or transmission,” which is the requirement for the suspension of rights of the online service provider to hold the right holder liable for infringement on the copyright right of the online service provider by using online services, and it is not clear that the online service provider is not liable for infringement on the copyright right of the online service provider without delay, in light of the proviso of Article 103(5) and the main sentence of Article 103(4) of the Copyright Act.

ii) In addition, Article 104(1) of the Copyright Act provides that “On-line service providers with the main purpose of enabling transmission of copyrighted works, etc. by using computers, etc. among other persons shall take necessary measures, such as technical measures to block illegal transmission of copyrighted works, etc. at the request of the right holders.” Paragraph (2) provides that “in such cases, matters concerning request of right holders and necessary measures shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the Copyright Act provides that “necessary measures, such as preventing unlawful transmission of copyrighted works, etc.” under Article 104(1) of the Copyright Act provides that “if such online service providers are unable to take necessary measures, such as restricting the search and transmission of copyrighted works, etc. at the request of 10 online service providers or 2 online service providers, the company is not obliged to take necessary measures to separate from the above online service providers under Article 104(1)4 of the same Act from the above online service providers, and that such measures should not be taken for the purpose of restricting the illegal transmission of copyrighted works, etc.”

iii) Furthermore, as to the Respondent’s assertion on its “negative” and “green file system,” in this case, as to whether the Respondent’s respective sound source files of this case are covered by the rate (98%) equivalent to the Respondent’s assertion, the Respondent’s submission of explanatory materials (No. 18-1, 2, and this explanatory materials are written about only the sound source of which the Respondent had neighboring rights. As seen earlier, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Respondent’s request for disclosure of the Respondent’s neighboring rights had no specific explanatory materials to acknowledge the Respondent’s disclosure rate, as the Respondent’s request for disclosure of the Respondent’s neighboring rights. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the Respondent’s request for disclosure of the Respondent’s neighboring rights to the Respondent’s digital content and the Respondent’s request for disclosure of the Respondent’s neighboring rights to the Respondent’s digital content and the Respondent’s request for disclosure of the Respondent’s digital content content in the future.

iv) Ultimately, the respondent's assertion that a series of measures to prevent infringement, such as the Respondent's writinging technology, adopted by the Respondent, are consistent with the current copyright law, and that it is a technical measure to prevent infringement of neighboring rights, is no longer reasonable.

4. Determination on the necessity of preservation

A. Furthermore, the following facts acknowledged as above, namely, ① members of the sound marine service as of October 31, 2006, despite the assertion by the respondent, members of the sound marine service have reached about 15 million won, and approximately 1,300,000 of the above members have entered into a fee for the use of the sound marine service. Many of the users of the sound marine service are expected to obtain MP3 files desired through the sound marine service without the purchase of music records, and the infringement of neighboring rights by the applicants, including neighboring rights, are more likely to continue to exist at the same time due to the infringement of neighboring rights by the applicants, and the infringement of neighboring rights by the applicants, including neighboring rights, is likely to have continued to exist in the future due to the inherent limitations in the open-term sale of the digital music service by the applicants. ② It is difficult for the users of the sound marine service to use the digital music service on the basis of the following factors.

B. The respondent company asserts that ① the respondent company paid the cost of the sound sea service through the agreement with the copyright-related organization, ② the respondent company realizing the application of the Respondent and music recognition technology on the premise of payization, ② the application of the application of the Respondent and music recognition technology, and the self-development of the green file system, and adding various technologies to prevent copyright infringement by using technical methods so far as possible, such as preventing illegal reproduction, and ③ the Respondent company has already agreed with copyright-related organizations such as the Copyright Association, and ③ it is anticipated that the Respondent company will have already concluded a content supply contract with 144 producers including large producers and music producers, and distribute considerable amount of profit to the right holders such as the Respondent. On the other hand, the Respondent's application for provisional disposition of this case is similar to the Respondent company's application for provisional disposition of this case, and that it interferes with the realization of the right of producers, etc. to seek for the interest of the music industry through the Internet, ④ it is necessary to preserve the copyright-related rights of the Respondent itself in the digital service itself.

Therefore, by examining the above facts, i.e., the payment of P2P services as agreed upon in the process of commercialization of the P2P services. Under the condition that the right holders, such as music record producers who permitted the supply of music costs, are entitled to take measures to prevent infringement of rights, such as pening, etc. against music record producers who did not permit the supply of music costs. However, in this case where the respondent company failed to actually perform its functions to protect neighboring rights adopted in the marine services based on the program of this case, it is difficult to acknowledge that the respondent company's claim for suspension of infringement against the respondent is not necessary to preserve the provisional disposition of this case on the ground that it is not necessary to establish the provisional disposition of this case on the basis of the agreement with the Respondent, i.e., the agreement with the Respondent 20th EM producers' organizations including the Copyright Association and the Respondent 2nd EM producers' associations, as argued by the Respondent company, i.e., the agreement with the Respondent 3rd producers' associations.

5. Scope of provisional disposition

Therefore, the applicants may seek suspension of the infringement of neighboring rights of each of the sound sources of this case against the respondent company pursuant to Article 123(1) of the Copyright Act. Thus, the respondent company is obligated not to have the users of the sound marine service run or download the MP3 file containing each of the sound sources of this case, which the creditors hold neighboring rights, using the program of this case, and further, in light of the above facts, it is necessary to fundamentally prevent neighboring rights infringement by the sound marine service of this case. Thus, the respondent company is obliged to order the distribution of the program of this case and the suspension of the provision of the sound marine service of this case as part of the "necessary measures where the request for suspension of infringement is made" as stipulated in Article 123(2) of the Copyright Act.

6. Conclusion

If so, the applicant's application for provisional disposition of this case is clearly explained about the right to be preserved and it is recognized that there is a need to preserve the right, and thus, it is unfair to conclude it differently, so the decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked by accepting the applicant's appeal and the decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and it shall be decided as per the order by ordering provisional disposition as stipulated in Paragraph (2) of this case,

[Attachment] List: omitted

Judges Park Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)