1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

In fact, the Plaintiff, under the trade name of “D” (hereinafter “instant company”), posted a photograph of household and small object as indicated in attached Table 1 (E) on the website (E) of the Plaintiff’s product design and photograph. The Plaintiff also posted the Plaintiff’s work “Plaintiff’s work” (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s work”).

The Defendant, as the spouse of the Plaintiff’s Dong F, worked together with the Plaintiff from the instant company. However, from May 14, 2016 to “G”, the Defendant engaged in the production and sales business of eco-friendly log households and props identical to the instant company, and posted a photograph of the Defendant’s product design and photographic material indicated in attached Table 2 on the website (C).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole argument by the parties concerned, the plaintiff asserted that "the defendant worked as an employee of the instant enterprise operated by the plaintiff from April 201 to April 2016. The defendant, while withdrawing from the instant enterprise, illegally released the plaintiff's copyrighted work, and posted it on his/her own homepage as it is. The design for furnitures and props among the plaintiff's copyrighted work constitutes applied art work, and the photograph of furnitures and props constitutes photographic work. The defendant infringed upon the plaintiff's author's property right, reproduction right, exhibition right, and distribution right, which is author's property right, and infringed on the plaintiff's property right, right of attribution and right of integrity." Therefore, the plaintiff asserted that "the defendant claimed against the defendant for prohibition of infringement of copyright and damages against the defendant."

As to this, the defendant, "the plaintiff, F, and the defendant operated the business of this case as a joint work of the plaintiff, F, and the defendant. Therefore, the defendant's act of utilizing it does not constitute copyright infringement."