(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.07 2017나10135

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.06.07 2017나10135

부당이득금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where the defendant makes a decision as to the assertion added to the grounds for appeal, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In addition, the Defendant: (a) concluded a service contract with the Defendant and established H, Inc. along with D, E, G, and F, which had been engaged in the production of the instant musical group; and (b) produced the instant musical group without excluding the Defendant; (c) the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for damages arising from the tort or to return unjust enrichment; and (d) accordingly, the Plaintiff is asserting that the Plaintiff offsets the Plaintiff’s obligation to return unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff’s claim to return unjust enrichment

However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the aforementioned evidence, namely, ① the service contract entered into between D, E, G, and F appears to have been agreed upon on February 24, 2015; ② the service contract entered into between the Defendant and D (Evidence B-1) states that “D transfers to the Defendant without any terms and conditions the copyright, publication right, and business right regarding the musical script of this case,” but the transfer period is limited to the contract period, and the amount received as the price is not large, it is difficult to view D as permanent transfer of the author’s property right on the musical script of this case to the Defendant solely based on the statement of the above contract, and ③ there is no other evidence to deem that the Defendant has any right to the musical version of this case.

Nor can it be said that the Plaintiff obtained a benefit without any legal ground due to the production of the instant musical work.

Therefore, we examine the remainder of the claims, as the defendant's counterclaim is not recognized.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대법원 2005. 10. 4.자 2004마639 결정

-서울고등법원 2007.5.22.선고 2006나47785 판결

-대법원 2015. 1. 29. 선고 2012다13507 판결

-서울고등법원 2014.12.11 2014나41430

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.06.16 2016가단6292