In the case of the creation of a work entirely separate from the original work, whether the title is the same and can be seen as infringing the right of integrity of the original work.

Under the Copyright Act, the right to maintain identity is a right to maintain the identity of the content, form, and title of a work, i.e., the author’s right not to be modified without permission, recepted, or any other change, which prevents any change in the original work itself. Therefore, if a work is created entirely separate from the scope of identity of the original work, rather than being modified, it cannot be deemed as infringing the right to maintain identity of the original work, even if its title is identical.

Article 13 of the Copyright Act

Madic water

Current Film Co., Ltd.

1. As to the case of a provisional injunction against motion picture production, distribution, screening, etc. by this Court No. 90Ka70635, Nov. 6, 1990, this Court shall revoke the provisional injunction order as of November 6, 1990

2. The creditor's motion is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the creditor;

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The creditor shall authorize the provisional disposition order mentioned in paragraph (1) above.

judgment that costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the debtor,

The debtor sought each judgment such as the order.

On November 6, 190 regarding the case of preliminary injunction No. 1 applied by the creditors, this court prepared a separate film production scenario No. 1 and No. 2 to the creditors with the above 0 scenario No. 1 and No. 2, and the obligor prepared a separate film production scenario No. 1 and No. 2 to the creditors with the same 0 scenario No. 1 and No. 2, and decided to issue an order of provisional injunction No. 1 to the creditors to keep the film No. 1 and No. 3 (Contract No. 3) to the creditors with the same 0 scenario No. 1 and No. 6 (No. 1) to the creditors with the same 0 scenario No. 1 and No. 9 (No.

The obligee asserts that the obligee's original work is not a creditor's collection, but a scenario listed in Paragraph (1) of the attached Table 1 of the same item which the obligee created on the basis of the obligee's original work, which had been used by the obligor under the contract between the obligee and the obligor on January 5, 190, was replaced by the scenario listed in Paragraph (2) of the same Table by agreement between the parties. The obligor has produced the film at all different scenarios from the above two convenience scenarios, which infringes the obligee's moral right to maintain identity among the obligee's moral rights to the above two convenience scenarios, and therefore, the provisional disposition described in Paragraph (1) of the attached Table, whose right to claim the exclusion of infringement is a preserved right, should be cited as the preserved right and the need for preservation.

However, the obligee's original work, which the obligor had used in filmizing with the obligee in the above contract on January 5, 1990, is recognized as the obligee's gathering of the above attached Table No. 1 or No. 2, which is not the scenario as stated in the above attached Table No. 1 or No. 2 but the obligee's gathering of the obligee's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's author's work.

However, the right to maintain identity under the Copyright Act is a right to maintain the identity of the content, form, and title of a work, i.e., the right of author not being modified without permission, Section 2, or any other modification, and this is not a right to prohibit any change in the original work itself. Thus, if a work is created entirely separate from the original work beyond the scope of the identity of the original work, even if its title is identical, it shall not be deemed an infringement on the right to maintain identity of the original work. Thus, even if a scenario created and used by the debtor for producing the said film in this case is identical, it shall not be deemed that the right to maintain identity of the author has been infringed on the right to maintain identity of the author of the two convenience scenarios created by the obligee (this part is also the obligee's own person). Therefore, the argument that the obligee infringed on the right to maintain identity of the author of the above two convenience scenarios created by the obligor is groundless.

In addition, the obligee asserts that the original work, which the obligor uses under the contract of January 5, 1990, is a scenario as described in Paragraph (1) of the above attached Table, which is the obligee's author's right to maintain the identity of the author of the scenario, and the obligee has cancelled the above contract on the ground that it infringes on the obligee's right to use it and the obligee has cancelled the above contract on the ground that the obligor's right to maintain the identity of the above scenario. However, the obligee's assertion that the original work, which the obligor uses under the contract of this case, is not a scenario, is not a scenario, and it is not recognized that the obligor infringes on the obligee's right to maintain the identity of the above scenario. Therefore, the obligee's assertion that the obligor cannot use the above film title on the ground that the above contract was cancelled is without merit.

Therefore, the obligee does not have the right to seek the prohibition of production, etc. against the above motion picture produced by the obligor against the obligor. Thus, the above provisional disposition decision constitutes a case where there is no vindication as to the preserved right. Thus, without examining the remaining issues, the obligee's application for provisional disposition in this case is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing obligee, and it is so decided as per Disposition with a declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Lee Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)