logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.06.21 2017나2050905
손해배상(지)
Text

1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the claims extended by this court are all dismissed.

2. Appeal costs and interest.

Reasons

Basic Facts

Between 2006 and 2007, the Plaintiff drafted “D” composed of a synopis, design [sopis (2D and 3D), BG (2D and 3D), rifle], a quantity of 20 minutes in the scenarios and scenarios for the purpose of carrying out the production of animation “D” as animation for the theater.

(hereinafter “Plaintiff’s work”). Motion picture “C” (hereinafter “Defendant’s work”) prepared scenarios around 2009, and Defendant Synaos Co., Ltd. was produced under Defendant B’s release around 2014 and opened on December 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion of facts without dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 5 and 17 and the purport of the entire pleadings has been prepared to produce “D” for a long time based on Plaintiff’s copyrighted work from around 2005 to 2015.

However, the Defendants infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright (right of production of derivative works) by producing and screening the film of the Defendants, which is substantially similar to the Plaintiff’s copyrighted work.

It is evident that the defendants' film will not be able to feel the need to view the plaintiff's animation with similar contents.

The plaintiff is practically unable to produce animation "D" or even if it is produced, the plaintiff suffers a big mental suffering at the same time as the plaintiff suffers a property loss that reduces the visitors.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, as a part of the above damages, sought payment of KRW 250,000,00 (property damages of KRW 200,000,000 and KRW 50,000) as part of the above damages, and sought to indicate that the Plaintiff’s copyrighted work is original in the film of the Defendants.

Based on whether the relevant legal principles are recognized (affirmative), even if the fact that a work subject to the relevant legal principles was produced based on an existing work is not recognized directly, indirect facts such as the possibility of access to the existing work, and similarity between the target work and the existing work are recognized.

arrow