The ownership of the copyright of the secondary program, which has revised the original program;

[1] Article 5 of the former Computer Programs Protection Act (amended by Act No. 6233 of Jan. 28, 2000) (see Article 3(2) of the current Act) (see Article 7 of the current Act)

Supreme Court Decision 200Da13757 Decided December 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 449) Supreme Court Decision 2000Do2950 Decided February 26, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 944) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6157 Decided September 23, 2003

Web Epart Technology Co., Ltd.

Web Small & Medium Business Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hann General Law Office, Attorneys Lee Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na49274 delivered on July 2, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. On May 198, 198, the lower court: (a) provided the Defendant’s 10-party 9-party 9-party 1-party 2-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 9-party 1-party 9-party 9-party 9.

2. The copyright of the second program, which revised the original program, belongs to the second program developer regardless of the consent of the original program copyright owner (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da13757, Dec. 26, 2002). According to the records, it is sufficient to view the program of this case to have been created under the circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court below, and it cannot be deemed that the program of this case was reproduced the "Cata 98 Eats" program, which the plaintiff claims that the program of this case was opened. Thus, the copyright owner of the program of this case is the defendant. Thus, in this case where the plaintiff sought the cancellation, etc. of the program of this case on the ground that the copyright of the program of this case belongs to the plaintiff, because the copyright of the program of this case does not belong to the plaintiff, the court below is justifiable to have determined that the plaintiff's claim is not reasonable, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the relationship between the second program and the second program, or not examining properly

The ground of appeal is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Byun Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)