2010Kahap36 Subject to provisional disposition prohibiting broadcasting

○ Kim

Seoul

Law Firm Gyeongsung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Attorney Kang Sung, Kim-hee, and Kim Delay

1. Stock companies:

Seoul Yeongdeungpo-dong 31 corporation 00

○○○○

2. ○ professional ethics company;

Seoul Yeongdeungpo-dong 34 - 1

Head of representative director ○

Respondent Law Firm Sejong, Counsel for the respondent-appellant

Attorney Lee Ji-ho, Justice Song Jae-ok

31, 2010

1. The motion of this case is dismissed.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant;

1. Respondent ○○, Inc., Ltd., from May 25, 2009 to December 22, 2009

by means of a broadcast, in person or through a third party, all or part of the images of the Radman’s “Madman”

shall not reconcept through any such medium as air wave, cable, DMB, the Internet, or any other medium; and

A. The right to broadcast D.I.D. and B. B. S. S. corporation and Japan

No permission shall be granted to any other third person.

2. The respondent, ○○ Protocol, Inc., shall record all or part of the images of the drama specified in paragraph (1);

the purpose of manufacturing, transferring, selling and selling the VD products of the title 'VD'

No advertisement shall be made.

3. Indirect compulsory performance of a violation of the subparagraphs of paragraphs (1) and (2) (10,00,000 won per day of the violation);

4. Orders for public disclosure of enforcement officers with respect to paragraphs (1) and (2);

1. Status of the parties

The Claimant created a musical part of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent ○○, Inc., the Respondent hereinafter referred to as the Respondent ○○, the Respondent hereinafter referred to as the Respondent ○) with theme. The Respondent ○, the Respondent, planning the Red Cross (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent hereinafter referred to as the "the Respondent ○") and broadcasting two times a week from May 25, 2009 to December 22, 2009 through the public wave channel (MC), and then, the Respondent ○○, Japan, the Respondent ○○○, the Respondent Co.,, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent ○○○, the Respondent ○○, the Respondent ○○, etc.) sold its re-convened right as its subsidiary, etc. as its subsidiary.

2. Applicant's assertion

A. In comparison with the applicant's script, the similarity is substantially similar to (1) ① the main characters of the drama, (2) the spatial background and its background, such as the character and character, the relationship between the characters, and the relationship between the appearing people, ② the growth of the dials and the appearance of stories, i.e., the structure of stories, such as the process, and ③ the meaning of the dials, iv) other characteristics, such as the comprehensive and non-personal elements, such as the instant case, and (2) other parts of the language or individual sentences, as well as the text elements.

B. On June 2005, the applicant was subject to investment review by providing substitute copies to the Korea Cultural Content Agency Review Team, etc. other than the applicant, and the Korea Cultural Content Agency disclosed the applicant substitute copies to the domestic well-known producer for its deliberation. As such, the respondent ○○ was likely to have contacted the applicant substitute copies prior to the creation of the instant drama.

C. Infringement of copyright

Respondent ○○, as above, produced and broadcasted the instant drama, which infringed on the copyright of the applicant’s scripts, and thereafter planned to reconcilate and sell the instant drama, and the respondent ○○○ Decipate manufactures and sells the instant drama as DVD. This infringes on the applicant’s right of reproduction, secondary copyrighted work preparation, public transmission, etc.

A. (1) The subject of copyright protection is limited to the creative expression form that is specifically expressed by speech, letter, sound, color, etc. and the contents expressed, namely, ideas and emotions such as ideas or theories, etc., which are the subject of copyright protection, in principle, even if they are creative and new.

As such, in determining which two works have substantial similarity, only the form of creative expression should be prepared (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da46259 delivered on November 26, 199). Also, in dealing with abstract types of figures or any subject in novels, etc., a case or background, etc. which is typically accompanied shall be included in the domain of ideas and shall not be protected under the Copyright Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da1089 delivered on October 10, 200).

24. See Supreme Court Decision 99Da10813, 24.

According to these legal principles, the records and records are based on the historical facts, most of the main figures (such as the Dora, Kim Jong-sik, and Blus, etc.) or the main structure of the stories (e.g., the lusium, the lusium, the lusium, the lusium, the lusium, the lusium, the lusium, and the lusium, etc.) of the Drama. In addition, it is not deemed that the applicant has imitated the main body. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the character of the main figures, such as the lusium or the lusium in the Drama in this case, the growth of the lusium in the lusium in the middle, the lusium in the middle, the lusium in the middle, the lusium in the middle, the lusium in the middle, the lusium in the middle, the lusium in the middle, and the lusium in the individual lov.

(2) Furthermore, even if the applicant pointed out as the part borrowed the applicant’s substitute part of the substitute part of the instant drama, this is merely a typical expression required for the development of the story, or there is a considerable difference between the two main expressions, and thus, the main part of the applicant’s substitute part and the instant drama is not substantially similar in terms of partial and text.

(3) Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s copyright was infringed on the Plaintiff’s copyright because the script of the instant drama constitutes a derivative work in which the reproduction or reproduction of the applicant’s script was made.

B. On the other hand, even if the respondent infringed on the applicant’s copyright, as long as the amount of the instant drama has already been broadcasted through a public wave channel and its broadcast has been completed in the human body, it is difficult to view that there is a need for the preservation of the drama as there is no urgency to seek a ban on the re-operation, etc. of the instant drama at the present stage.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the petition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Presiding Judge, Judge and Jae-young

Judges Lee fixed-term

Judges Lee Dong-young