1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

Facts of recognition

On September 15, 2000, the Plaintiff produced a letter program (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s letter program”) in the name of “Illl02” as a company that produces and distributes letter programs, and published it on September 9, 2010, registered the program copyright.

The defendant is awarded a contract for the production of promotional video works from Ansan-si on August 201, and thus "C" (hereinafter referred to as "the video works of this case") shall be "the video works of this case".

A) The caption of the instant video works contains letters using the Plaintiff’s body program in the caption of the instant video works. The Defendant omitted the name of the co-defendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “Co-defendant B of the first instance trial”) using the name D for the production of the said video works.

A) The editing work of this case, including a caption production, was subcontracted to the Defendant. B, some of the caption letters, which were produced by using the Plaintiff’s body program, was supplied to the Defendant and included in the image. 【No dispute exists, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no ground for recognition, the Plaintiff’s assertion in collusion with B, which infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright on the Plaintiff’s body program by using the Plaintiff’s body program without permission. The Defendant’s assertion that the caption part of the instant film was subcontracted to B, and the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff’s body program to B on its own initiative, and the completed work was supplied to the Defendant when it became known, and there was no conspiracy as to the Plaintiff’s copyright infringement. In the case of the documentary file, it constitutes a computer program, not a simple data file, and the producer’s creative personality was expressed in the production of the documentary file, and thus, constitutes a creative work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5297, May 26, 2005).