1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2006, the Plaintiff, as the DDma author, written the Donononology and the entire reduced distance, and registered the copyright on D date (registration number E). The Plaintiff written a copy of C’s “C” once and registered the F date copyright (registration number G).

(hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s work” in total, including the donoptic s and total reduced distance created by the Plaintiff, and the single script.

The Defendant, as a drama author in the name of “H”, written the drama scenario (hereinafter “Defendant’s work”) in the title “I” (hereinafter “Defendant’s work”).

The above drama was aired 24 times in total from April 2, 2007 to June 19, 2007 by the J.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8 through 11 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s work was rejected by delivering the Plaintiff’s work to the Director L at the time of KK Co., Ltd., and proposing the drama production.

However, at the time, the Defendant, who had established K jointly with M, a famous producer at the time, obtained the Plaintiff’s copyrighted work from L, and had the Defendant work de facto similar to the Plaintiff’s copyrighted work, written and broadcasted the Plaintiff’s copyrighted work, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright.

Meanwhile, the Defendant’s profit derived from the Defendant’s work is at least KRW 560 million for a total of at least KRW 40 million for the Defendant’s own nomination and ability. If the Defendant’s contribution and expense are deducted, the actual profit gained from the Defendant’s work is presumed to be at least KRW 210 million for the Defendant’s work.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 125(2) or Article 126 of the Copyright Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 210 million as damages for infringement of copyright.

3. Determination

(1) The author’s property right of the Plaintiff’s work is infringed on whether the relationship is recognized under the law.