The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Dystun Systems Korea Co., Ltd. is dismissed.

The plaintiff's Dayst System.

1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

A. According to the record as to the grounds of appeal against Defendant Drocketing Systems Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Drocketing Systems Korea”), the Plaintiff asserted that the instant contract concluded with the Defendant was not violated. The first instance court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion but did not conclude that the damage was incurred to the Defendant Drocketing Systems Korea. Ultimately, it was accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of non-existence of damages liability against the said Defendant, and the said Defendant appealed against this claim, but the lower court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal.

Therefore, the appeal by the plaintiff against the above defendant is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal as to the part of his winning.

B. As to the grounds of appeal against Defendant Dunst Systems S., (1) in the course of (i) the user’s implementation of a computer program installed in an auxiliary memory device, such as a computer hard disc drive drive (HDD) or search, perusal, and transmission of digitalized works via the Internet, the central processing device (CPU) loads a computer program onto mack (in order to improve the processing speed of the computer program carried out. The reproduction of the computer program occurring in this process can be deemed temporary reproduction in that the contents of the reproduced computer program are entirely erased if all were to be deleted.

Even though the Copyright Act includes "temporary fixing or remaking works in tangible objects" in the concept of reproduction in Article 2 subparagraph 22 of the Copyright Act, Article 35-2 recognizes as necessary for smooth and efficient information processing when using works in computers.