1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

1. The following facts are apparent in the records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap46691) seeking prohibition of infringement, deletion of infringing works, and partial claim for compensation for damages (100,000 won and damages therefor) by asserting that “the Defendant produced the Defendant’s program similar in substance to the Plaintiff’s program based on the program created by the Plaintiff, and manufactured and sold the Defendant’s program at home and abroad as a system for operating the Defendant’s program, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff’s author’s property rights such as the right to create derivative works and the right to maintain identity, etc.

B. Of the part against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff appealed only to some (5 million won) (this Court 2014Na27212), and the above court did not recognize the possibility of the Defendant’s access to the Plaintiff’s program prior to the Defendant’s creation because the Defendant’s program was created before May 2006, when the Plaintiff’s program was published, and it is difficult to acknowledge the possibility of prior access to the Plaintiff’s program. ② The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the possibility of prior access to the Plaintiff’s program, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. ③ Even if there are some similar parts of the Plaintiff’s program and the Defendant’s program on the premise that the Plaintiff’s program is blind, or the background and image’s expression method, and whether the program was used during the display period, this is similar to the idea that is not protected under the Copyright Act, on November 27, 2014.