In a case where: (a) Company A entered into a contract to establish a publication right on a work with Company B; (b) entered into a new contract to establish a publication right with Company C after the expiration of the contract period; (c) Company B issued a book with Company B as author; and (d) Company B entered the book with the expression “Sin P Pis 2” on the ground of infringement of copyright; and (c) Company A filed an application for a provisional disposition against Company B, such as prohibition of printing and selling books, the case affirming Company B’s application on the ground that printing, copying, selling, and distributing books constitutes infringement of copyright; and (d) Company B’s right to obtain a claim for the prohibition of printing or selling books, etc. against Company B is recognized and need to be preserved.

In a case where Gap signed a contract to establish a publication right with Eul corporation and published a book, which entered into a new contract to establish a publication right with Byung corporation after the expiration of the contract period, and Eul published a book with the author of the above book, and Gap filed an application for a provisional injunction against Eul corporation for the prohibition of publication and sale of books on the ground of copyright infringement, the case affirming Eul's application for a provisional injunction against Eul corporation for the prohibition of publication and sale of books, the case holding that Eul's book is substantially similar to Gap's work, considering the fact that Eul's book uses Eul's work as it is, Gap's expression and technical method related to various copies included in the work, and the quantity of the similar part accounts for a considerable amount of the whole book, and Eul's printing, reproduction, sale and distribution of Eul's company book constitute infringement against Gap's copyright, and it is recognized that Eul's direct infringement of the right to seek for the prevention of infringement of Gap's copyright infringement.

Article 300 of the Civil Execution Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Ku-dong, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Master Publication Co., Ltd. (Attorney Special-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. Subject to the condition that the applicant deposits 50,000,000 won in cash for the respondent or submits a payment guaranty insurance policy with the above amount as the insured amount:

(a) The respondent shall not print, copy, sell and distribute the books listed in the Schedule 1 Schedule; and

B. The respondent shall set aside the possession of the above book and printing films in his custody and have the enforcement officer entrusted by the applicant keep them in custody.

2. The applicant's remaining requests are dismissed.

3. Litigation costs shall be borne by the respondent.

1. Decision to the same effect as paragraph (1) of this Article, except an order to provide security;

2. The execution officer shall publicly announce the purport of the said order in the proper manner.

1. Facts of vindication;

In full view of the overall purport of the examination of the records of this case, the following facts are substantiated.

가. 신청인은 뉴스전문채널인 와이티엔(YTN)의 외교통상부 담당기자로서 유엔 사무총장인 소외 1을 약 1년 동안 취재하면서 수집한 자료 및 에피소드 등을 바탕으로 2006년경 ‘바보처럼 공부하고 천재처럼 꿈꿔라’라는 제호의 서적(이하 ‘이 사건 제호’, ‘이 사건 저작물’이라 한다)을 저술하였다.

B. On November 22, 2006, the respondent entered into a contract to establish a publication right on the instant copyrighted work with the applicant (hereinafter “instant contract”), and on January 3, 2007, the respondent published the instant copyrighted work under the title of this case for about five (5) years after the publication by indicating the applicant as the author. The key contents of the instant contract are as follows.

Article 1 (Establishment of Right of Publication) The applicant shall establish the right of publication on the instant copyrighted works to the respondent through the instant contract, and the respondent shall have exclusive right to reproduce and distribute the instant copyrighted works.

Article 3 (Exclusive Use): No applicant shall publish a work identical or substantially similar to the whole or any part of the title and content of the instant work, or allow any other person to publish such work during the term of validity of the instant contract.

Article 4 (Duration of Right of Publication) Paragraph (1) of the same Article: The right of publication of the work of this case shall continue to exist for five years after the date of original publication.

Article 8 (Respect for Authors’ Personal Rights): When Respondent intends to change the title, content, or expression of the work of this case, he/she shall obtain the consent of the applicant without fail.

Article 21 (Renewal of Contract): The term of validity of the contract in this case is automatically renewed under the same conditions as the contract in this case and is extended for three years, unless the applicant and respondent have notified at least three months before the expiration of the term that they do not want the renewal of the contract in this case.

C. On August 4, 201, the applicant notified the respondent that he/she does not want to renew the instant contract, three months prior to the expiration date of the instant contract, and concluded a new contract to establish a publication right on the instant copyrighted work with the Defendant, and on January 16, 2012, the applicant issued a book stating the phrase “2012 amended edition.”

D. On May 30, 2012, the respondent made an entry of the expression “Sinle 2” in the instant Subparag. 30, and issued the book in the attached Table 1 (hereinafter “the respondent’s book”) with Nonparty 2 as the author. Compared the main contents of the instant work and the respondent’s book, it is as shown in the attached Table 2.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The applicant asserts to the effect that the respondent’s book constitutes an unauthorized reproduction of the instant copyrighted work, which was published by modifying or editing the content of the instant copyrighted work as it is or in part, and that the respondent’s printing, reproduction, sale, or distribution of the said book shall be prohibited as soon as it infringes on the applicant’s copyright.

2) On this point, the respondent recognized that the applicant made the first idea of the instant work, but most of the contents actually included in the instant work, including the title of this case, were newly created by the employees of the respondent, including Nonparty 3, the representative of the respondent, not the applicant, through re-authorting. Thus, the instant work constitutes joint works of the applicant and the respondent, and therefore, the applicant who issued the revised re-printed edition through a new publishing company, sought prohibition of printing the respondent's book against the respondent constitutes an abuse of rights against the good faith principle.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the above facts, that is, the applicant’s establishment of publication right to the respondent on the premise that he is the sole copyright holder of the copyrighted work of this case including the title of this case, and the respondent expressed only the applicant for about five years who published the copyrighted work of this case and continued to pay royalties to the applicant under the contract of this case, it is reasonable to regard the applicant as the sole copyright holder of the copyrighted work of this case, including the title of this case. The respondent’s assertion that the joint copyright holder of the copyrighted work of this case is the co-owner of the copyrighted work of this case is without merit.

In addition, the title of this case is a symbolic expression indicating the work of this case, and the respondent's book is used as it is, and the respondent's book is used as it is, such as the annexed list 2, the respondent's statement is very similar to the applicant's expression and technical method concerning the various Epids included in the work of this case, and the quantity of the similar part forms a considerable part of the whole book, etc., the defendant's book is deemed to be substantially similar to the work of this case.

Therefore, printing, printing, printing, selling, and distributing the respondent's book constitutes an infringement on the applicant's copyright of this case. Thus, the applicant's right to preserve the respondent's book is recognized, and the respondent's right to seek the printing or prohibition of sale of the respondent's book is disputed, the respondent has already suffered direct damage to the applicant who issued the revised edition of the work of this case through the new publishing company due to the infringement prior to the above infringement of the respondent, and it is not easy for the respondent to receive relief through the lawsuit on the merits due to the characteristics of the copyright infringement case, and considering all the circumstances shown in the whole purport of the records and the examination of this case, the necessity

However, the applicant is also seeking a disclosure order of enforcement officers, but the disclosure of the provisional disposition order in the nature of the case is not deemed necessary to ensure its effectiveness, so this part of the application is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the applicant's application of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining application is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] Indication of Books: omitted

[Attachment 2] Comparison : omitted

Judges Park Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)