beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. A part which is to be used or to add judgment;
A. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was used after the dismissal, was “not sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant had entered into the horse contract with G on June 25, 2018,” from No. 5 to No. 3, No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance. 5.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that Article 9(1) of the instant contract provides that the Defendant has all intellectual property rights that may arise, directly, and indirectly, derived from “Drred video works,” including the right to commercialized,” and that the Plaintiff cannot perform the said obligations under the instant contract, insofar as the manufacture of Drma is under way based on the original data provided by the Plaintiff according to the Drma contract on June 25, 2018.
However, solely on the fact that a drama contract was concluded on June 25, 2018, it is difficult to view the instant contract as an original impossibility (the Plaintiff may perform the terms of the instant contract after terminating the validity, such as terminating the drama contract on June 25, 2018). The Plaintiff appears to have entered into the instant contract with the knowledge of the foregoing contents, and in particular, the instant contract may be deemed to succeed to the instant contract on December 16, 2015. In light of the fact that Article 4 of the said contract restricts the conclusion of the contract on the production of various visual products, the instant contract is deemed to be an original impossibility solely based on the circumstance alleged by the Plaintiff.