1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 28, 2008, C, the representative of B, entered into a contract on the transfer of all rights to the sound sources listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “the sound sources of this case”) in the case where C, on April 28, 2008, borrowed KRW 20 million from the Loen Entertainment Co., Ltd. (at the time of change of the company’s trade name, but only in this case, “e.g., the parties”) and did not repay the loan by April 28, 2008.

B. On April 28, 2008, C entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the same day, under the Copyright Act, to transfer to the Plaintiff the rights of the phonogram producer under the same day, even though C failed to repay the above loan debt.

C. On January 29, 2015, the court below filed an application with the Defendant for the registration of neighboring rights to the instant sound source, and on February 16, 2015, the Defendant registered the instant sound source as a music record producer in the neighboring rights register with respect to the instant sound source.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The entry in Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 8, and Eul’s No. 1 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Under the Plaintiff’s assertion of neighboring rights, registration of neighboring rights under the Plaintiff’s Copyright Act is divided into registration of rights to register matters concerning the rights of the creator and registration of changes in rights in cases where the ownership or content of rights, such as assignment of neighboring rights, changes in rights, etc. are recorded. Since the instant case was transferred by C with the right to the sound sources of this case, if the instant case is intended to register neighboring rights to the sound sources of this case, the registration of changes

Nevertheless, the instant disposition is null and void in violation of the Copyright Act, since the parties independently applied for the registration of rights, and the Defendant applied for the registration of neighboring rights as to the instant sound source, which is inconsistent with the substantive relations.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant’s main defense is the negative of the instant case.