[1] The case holding that the producer and seller's right of music records for sale under the contract of music records shall be denied on the ground that the producer and seller's right of music records shall be a producer of the above music record, on the ground that the producer directly takes charge of the principal work of fixing the sound sources of each music, such as the production of the master tape of the music record, by directly selecting the music record to be recorded in the music record and by paying

[2] The meaning of a third party who is unable to oppose without being registered the change of the author's property right under Article 52 of the Copyright Act, and in case where the third party knowingly and actively participated in the act of the transferor's breach of trust, whether the transferee who did not register the transfer of the author's property right may oppose the third party (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that, in case where the parties related to the alteration of rights after the death of the phonogram producer jointly vests neighboring rights to the parties and produce a new phonogram by using the sound source recorded in the above phonogram in the future, the parties agreed to jointly exercise neighboring rights, and thus, they are held liable to compensate for damages arising from infringement of neighboring rights by other parties to a person who produces and distributes the phonogram by using some sound source of the above phonogram without the consent of other joint right holders, on the ground that they agreed to jointly exercise neighboring rights

[1] The case holding that music record producers under the Copyright Act committed acts as music record producers and sellers of music records for sale under the contract on music records on the ground that music records are directly responsible for the production of the master tape of music records, in light of the fact that music records producers under the Copyright Act have first fixed music records, which are tangible music records, with the intention of reverting their neighboring rights, and that they have directly selected the music records which will be recorded in the music records and have paid expenses by themselves, and that they have produced the master tape of music records through sound recording and editing processes

[2] According to Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act, matters concerning the restriction on transfer or disposal of author's property right cannot be asserted against a third party unless it is registered. Here, the third party means a person who has legitimate interest in claiming defects in registration, such as acquiring legal status that is incompatible with the legal status of the party involved in the alteration of rights, except the parties involved in the alteration of rights and the general successor thereof. In light of the purport of the above provision, in a case where it is contrary to the principle of good faith to prevent a third party from setting up a defense against a transferee on the ground of defects in registration due to the reason that the third party becomes aware of the transferor's breach of trust and actively participated in the act in breach of trust, etc., the third party is not included in the third party who is unable to set up against the third party unless the change in author's property right is registered. Accordingly, the transferee who did not register the transfer of author's property right can set up against the third party

[3] The case holding that, in case where the parties related to the alteration of rights after the death of the phonogram producer jointly vests neighboring rights to the parties and produce a new phonogram using the sound source recorded in the above phonogram in the future, the parties agreed to jointly exercise neighboring rights, and thus, the parties are held liable to compensate for damages arising from the infringement of neighboring rights by other parties to the person who produces and distributes the phonogram using some sound source of the above phonogram without the consent of other joint right holders, on the ground that they agreed to jointly exercise neighboring rights

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Copyright Act / [2] Article 52 of the Copyright Act / [3] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 93 (1) of the Copyright Act, Article 94 of the Copyright Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4849 decided Nov. 26, 2002 (Gong2003Sang, 284) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da10756 decided Jul. 13, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1491)

[Defendant-Appellant] Handom Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Square, Attorneys Han Jin-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

[Defendant-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and four others (Attorney Jeon Young-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellee)

September 1, 2006

1. Defendant 2. List Mawak Co., Ltd. shall not produce and distribute the music record “KimK Hak Co., Ltd.” by inserting the grains indicated in attached Table 2. List Mawak Co., Ltd., and shall delete the grains described in attached Table 2. List Mawa from the posters tape of the above music record and the completed commercial music record.

2. Defendant 3, each of the following:

A. Payment of the amount of KRW 29,686,694 among the above amounts and KRW 47,258,122 to Plaintiff 2-1 shall be made from November 16, 2003; the remainder of KRW 17,571,428 shall be made from July 4, 2006 to October 10, 206; and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and

B. The amount of KRW 19,791,129 out of the above amount and KRW 31,505,414 to Plaintiff 2-2 shall be paid from November 16, 2003; KRW 11,714,285 from July 4, 2006 to October 10, 2006; and KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. Each claim against the Defendants of the Plaintiff New Zealand Co., Ltd., the Defendants of the Plaintiff 2-1, and 2-2, the remainder of the claim against the Defendants of the Plaintiff 2-1 and 2-2, and the Defendants 2-1 and 2-2, respectively, shall be dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff New Zealand Co., Ltd. and the Defendants shall be borne by the said Plaintiff, and the part arising between Plaintiff 2-1, 2-2 and Defendant Barle Code Limited Co., Ltd., Defendant Tyleeye Co., Ltd., Defendant Cyleye Co., Ltd., and the part arising between the Plaintiff 2-1, and 2-2, Defendant Cylety Co., Ltd., Defendant 3, and Defendant 3 shall be borne by the said Plaintiffs. The part arising between the Plaintiff 2-1 and 2-2, and Defendant 3 shall be borne by the said Plaintiffs 2-1, and 2-2, and

5. The above paragraphs 1 and 2 can be provisionally executed.

1. Defendants 3 and 3, respectively, limited liability company of Defendant Myle Code, Defendant Cyle Tyle three corporation, and Defendant C;

A. From November 14, 2002 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case from November 14, 2002 to the date of the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the Plaintiff New Dorom Co., Ltd., 200,000 and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment; and

B. With respect to the plaintiff 2-1, 2-2, 100,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the last delivery date of the complaint of this case or from the day following the day of the last delivery date of the brief of July 3, 2006 to the day of complete payment;

(c) suspend the production and distribution of music records as shown in paragraph 1 of the Record List, and destroy the master tape and completed music records.

2. Each of the following persons in the case of the Defendant Trine Co., Ltd., the Defendant ABM Seoul :

A. As to KRW 360,00,000 among the above money and KRW 360,000,000 from January 1, 2001; as to the remainder of KRW 80,000,000 from May 1, 2001 to the delivery date of a copy of each complaint of this case, 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment; and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

B. Payment of the amount of KRW 220,00,00 to Plaintiffs 2-1, 2-2 and the amount of KRW 220,000 per annum from the day following the last delivery date of the complaint of this case or from the day following the day of the last delivery date of the brief of July 3, 2006 to the day of complete payment; and

(c) suspend the production and distribution of each sound record as set out in [Attachment 1. 2 and 3], and discard all the posters and completed sound records.

(Plaintiff 2-1 and 2-2 shall claim damages incurred before June 30, 2003 with respect to the damages for delay part against the Defendants, damages incurred before June 30, 2003 shall be paid from the day after the last delivery date of the complaint of this case to the day after the last delivery date of the complaint of this case, and damages incurred until June 30, 2006 to the day after the last delivery date of the preparatory document of this case to the day of full payment).

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or are recognized by Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including all of these numbers), Gap evidence 8-4, 5, 6, 9, 9-7, Eul evidence 26, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, 4, 6, Eul evidence 14-1, 2, Eul evidence 21, Eul evidence 1, and 21, Eul evidence 9-4 and 5, and there is no other counter-proof.

A. Contracts, etc. between the Plaintiff, New Round Co., Ltd. and the deceased Nonparty 1

(1) On October 12, 1993, the Plaintiff New Zealand Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff New Zealand”) entered into the following contract with the deceased Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “instant music agreement”) with the consent of the Non-Party 1 (hereinafter “instant contract”) under the consent of the Non-Party 1, the Plaintiff’s headquarters (hereinafter “instant music agreement”) and around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 500 million to Kim Gan under the pretext of line.

This contract is concluded with respect to the production, sale, and public relations of 'A'(Salking code of Company A), 'B' (Non-Party 1), as follows:

§ 1. Contract term is indefinite after the date of the contract offset.

Article 2. Contract Articles are the planning of B, in whole, three typologys, three gress, four gress, and four gress, part of Kim Jong-kak.

§ 3. The LP, MC, CD production and sale of music records shall be in charge by Gap, and the supply and public relations of sound recordings and printed materials shall be in charge by Eul.

§ 4. A. Of 30,000 won of down payment to B, 20,000 won shall be three-month bills, and the remaining KRW 10,000 shall be the payment in cash.

§ 5. The method of royalty payments shall apply to LP-1,650 won, MC-1,200 won, CD-1,700 won.

SECTION 6. A shall settle the accounts of C at the end of each month after crediting the lines and deduct the actual return and operating expenses from 10 per cent on the 15th of the following month, and then pay in three-month bill.

SECTION 7. B shall not furnish or transfer to another company the grain contained in the contract before the heat offset or before the termination of the agreement, without the agreement of the Party A, and shall be treated as a breach of the contract in case of breach.

§ 8. Upon termination of the contract, the deposit with respect to the return deposit deposits shall be fixed for six months as the filing period of return and shall be subject to mutual consultation to deposit at the settlement of royalties.

§ 9. A shall carry out his good faith and do his best to the management and business of Already, and Eul shall compensate for three times the down payment made by A when it violates this contract terms.

(2) After the conclusion of a contract to amend part of the content by including the same content as the instant music record contract between the police officer Kim Jong-man and the non-party 1 in early 1994, and the parties to the contract shall be Kim Jong-man, the non-party 1, and the contract shall be the whole four typists of Kim Jong-man, the part of which shall be "I, II, III, and four typists of Kim Jong-dae, all of which shall be 4 typists," instead of taking charge of the publicity of the plaintiff Shin Jae-do Museum, and instead of taking charge of the public relations of the plaintiff Shin Jae-do Museum, 10% of the contract shall be added from the royalties, and the contract shall be retroactively written on October 12, 1993 and written on October 12, 1993.

(3) Of the destroyed of Kim Young-mix’s 3rd music, the music records “Gim-mar 1” were produced around March 20, 1992; the music records “Gim-mar 1” around March 2, 1993; the music records “Gim-mar 4” around June 25, 1994; and the music records “Dau-mar II” around February 22, 1995 (hereinafter the above four music records “instant music records”).

B. Agreement, etc. between the deceased Nonparty 1 and Defendant 3

(1) On January 1, 1996, as the above Kim Jong-seok died, as to who is the beneficiary of the royalty that Kim Jong-seok received from the plaintiff Shin Young-si, the defendant 3, his child, and the non-party 2 asserted that he succeeded to the above right as the heir of the non-party 1 and Kim Jong-seok, claiming that he received all rights to the instant phonogram before the birth on the basis of the content of the instant music agreement, and that the non-party 3, his child, and the non-party 3 and the non-party 2 filed a lawsuit claiming the confirmation of the right to claim the royalty (Seoul Central District Court 96Gahap23097) against the non-party 1 and the plaintiff Shin Han-do. In addition, the defendant 3 and the non-party 2 filed a lawsuit claiming the confirmation of the right to claim the instant music record against the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1.

(2) On June 26, 1996, when the lawsuit at issue was pending, Nonparty 1 and Defendant 3 agreed to the following (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Accordingly, Defendant 3 and Nonparty 2 withdraw both the above application for prohibition of payment of royalties and the lawsuit seeking confirmation of claim for royalties. Nonparty 1 was paid royalties under the instant sound records contract from the Plaintiff Shin Rono until October 8, 2004.

1. Sales rights to existing four music records;

(1) Defendant 3 recognizes that Nonparty 1 has the right and all other rights with respect to the previous four phonograms (I, II, III, and IV).

(2) If Nonparty 1 dies, all the rights and other rights pertaining to the existing four music records held by Nonparty 1 shall be transferred to Nonparty 2, who is a dependent on Defendant 3 and the grandchildren of Nonparty 1.

2. Sales rights on the hybrid records to be produced in the future;

The non-party 1 acknowledges that only Defendant 3 had the right and all other rights, and did not raise any legal objection to this, and agreed to cooperate in the production and sale of Rab phonogram, which Defendant 3 will make in the future in connection with the singing of Kim Jong-seok (including the rice recorded in the existing four music records).

3. Sales rights on music records to be produced in the future;

A contract for all the music-related records (including, but not limited to, bes and omb music records made by putting a beer out of the music recorded in the existing four music records) related to the singing of the above deceased Kim-tin, excluding four existing music records and Rab music records, shall not be executed independently by the defendant 3 or 1, and the contract between the defendant 3 and the non-party 1 shall be concluded by the agreement between the defendant 1 and the non-party 1. A contract concluded without the agreement between the non-party 1 and the defendant 3 shall be null and void, and if either party independently executes the contract, it shall be deemed a violation of

4. Withdrawal of litigation;

After this Agreement was notarized, Defendant 3 withdraws the application for the injunction against the payment of royalties against Nonparty 1 and the stalking code and the lawsuit claiming the confirmation of royalties claim.

5. Compensation for losses caused by breach of contract.

Where any of the non-party 1 and the defendant 3 violates part of the above agreed matters, the breaching party shall pay 100,000,000 won to the other party as penalty.

(3) Meanwhile, Nonparty 1 died on October 8, 2004 during the instant lawsuit, and Nonparty 1, the wife of Nonparty 1, Plaintiff 2-1, Plaintiff 2-2, Defendant 3, his child, and Nonparty 2, his child, jointly inherited or inherited Nonparty 1’s property.

C. Production and sale of Compilation records by the Defendants

(1) On September 19, 2000, Defendant 3 received KRW 50,000 from Nonparty 3, the representative director of Macro Macro, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant Tacro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro 1- Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro Macro”) and allowed Nonparty 3 to use the instant sound records as recorded in the instant records.

(2) In addition, around January 12, 2001, Defendant 3 received KRW 100 million from Nonparty 3, and allowed the use of the mwit tape used in the production of the instant sound recording, Defendant Tycho-ri, using the above mwit tape, produced “Kim Kitang Seuk Slas Clasic 5th sound records (hereinafter “cro-type sound records”), and 10 as indicated in [Attachment 20] List No. 20 of the above sound records were used as a sound source for the windows of Kim Jong-ri, the same as that recorded in the instant sound recording.

(3) On March 25, 2001, Defendant C&M Seoul Phonograms Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Phonograms”) entered into a music record distribution agreement with Defendant C&V and created and sold approximately KRW 140,00 of the music records and approximately KRW 48,00 of the music records for sale from around that time to June 2003.

(4) Around November 11, 2002, Defendant 3 and the above Defendant, a representative director, produced the instant compilation record (hereinafter referred to as the “MyWC record”) on the part of Defendant 3, and the sound source on the windows of Kim Jong-seok, which is the same as that recorded in the instant record, was used in the same column as that of the instant record, among the 33 copies recorded in the said record.

(5) On October 10, 2002, Defendant Myle Code Limited Liability Company (hereinafter “Defendant Myle Code”) entered into a sales agency contract with Defendant Myle Code up to 92% of the profits earned from Defendant Myle Code as sales agent; and thereafter, 93% of the profits earned from Defendant Myle Code as sales agent; around that time, from Defendant Myle Code to June 2003, Defendant Myle Code entered into a sales agency contract with Defendant Myle Code up to 16,190 won per opening on the Myle Code.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs

(1) The plaintiff Doz.

(A) The above Plaintiff directly produced the instant phonogram or acquired the right as a producer from Kim Young-mix. The Defendants illegally reproduced the sound sources included in the instant phonogram owned by the said Plaintiff as a music record producer, and then edited it, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s neighboring rights.

(B) Accordingly, Defendant Myle Code, Defendant 3, and Defendant 3 sought suspension of the production and distribution of Myle phonogram produced and distributed by the said Defendants against Myle Code, the destruction of Myle tape and completed sound records, the discontinuance of production and distribution by the said Defendants against Defendant Myleeng-ri and Seoul sound records, respectively, and the destruction of Myle-ro, Cyle-type sound records produced and distributed by the said Defendants, the suspension of production and distribution thereof, and the disposal of Myle- tape and completed sound records. Also, as part of the compensation for damages calculated based on Article 93(1) of the Copyright Act, the said Defendants seek payment of the amount of money

(2) Plaintiffs 2-1, 2-2

(A) The deceased non-party 1 acquired neighboring rights as a performer from the deceased Kim Jong-m, the performer of the instant music record, and upon the agreement of this case, acquired 1/2 shares and the right of joint conclusion of a contract for all the copyright and neighboring rights related to the music of Kim Young-m, which will be produced in the future. At the time of the agreement of this case, the deceased non-party 1 donated the right and all other rights related to the music of this case owned by Non-party 1 to Non-party 2, and withdrawn it thereafter, and bequeathed the above rights to the above plaintiffs.

(B) Therefore, Nonparty 1’s prior birth, after Nonparty 1’s death, held the right to purchase and all other rights to the instant records, and the right to enter into a joint contract with respect to the copyright and neighboring rights of all the records related to the singinging of Kim ore, which will be produced after the agreement of this case. The Defendants, after reproducing the sound sources contained in the instant records without permission, have infringed upon the rights and neighboring rights of Nonparty 1 and the said Plaintiffs by editing them and editing them, and Defendant 3 violated the obligations under the agreement of this case, and the said Plaintiffs jointly inherited the right to claim damages and the right to claim a penalty against Nonparty 1.

(C) Accordingly, Defendant Mirm Code, and Hydr Tri Museum’s production and distribution suspension of marina records produced and distributed by the said Defendants, and the disposal of the relevant Mirri tape and completed music records, and sought for the suspension of production and distribution of the instant records, and for the disposal of the posters tape and completed music records produced and distributed by the said Defendants against Defendant Mirri-ri’s Seoul music records, and for the disposal of the instant records, it also sought payment of the amount written in the purport of the claim as part of the compensation for damages calculated based on Articles 93(1) and 94 of the Copyright Act with respect to Defendant Mirri-ri’s music records, and for Seoul music records, it is also necessary to seek payment of the amount written in the purport of the claim as part of the compensation calculated based on Articles 93(1) and 94 of the Copyright Act, as well as of the penalty stipulated in the instant agreement.

B. The Defendants

(1) The Defendant’s bar code argues that (i) the rights asserted by the Plaintiffs cannot be acknowledged, and (ii) even if there were rights as alleged by the Plaintiffs to household affairs, the Defendant’s bar code merely concluded a sales agency contract with the Defendant’s Dad three Museum and distributed Mawa Phonograms, and did not have any awareness of intent, negligence, and illegality of infringement of rights, and (iii) did not distribute Mawa Phonograms after June 2003 when the sales agency contract was terminated.

(2) Defendant 3, Defendant 3, and Defendant Seoul Phonograms produced the instant phonogram independently or jointly with Defendant 3’s seat, and the neighboring rights of the phonogram producer were owned by Defendant 3 or Nonparty 2, who is the heir of Defendant 3 or Kim Jong-seok, and Kim Jong-seok did not transfer the neighboring rights of the instant phonogram to Nonparty 1. The instant agreement is merely related to the ownership of the right to receive royalties under the instant phonogram. As the instant agreement is merely related to the ownership of the right to receive royalties, the neighboring rights of the performer of the instant phonogram are also owned by Defendant 3 and Nonparty 2, who succeeded to the instant phonogram. ② The instant Compilation was produced by using the sound source separate from the sound source of the instant phonogram. ② The instant Compilation was not reproduced as it was produced by Defendant 3, and ③ Defendant Seoul Ma-ri did not have been negligent in the act of infringement of the right to exploit the instant phonogram’s neighboring rights.

(3) Defendant Tai Tyri’s Tyri’s Tyri’s (1) cannot be said to have infringed on the copyright rights of the phonogram producer or the performer because the said Defendant’s production of the music records constitutes the secondary copyrighted works. ② Even if the act of infringement of neighboring rights of domestic affairs constitutes the infringement of neighboring rights, the said Defendant did not have intention or negligence on the act of infringement, and ③ Nonparty 1 did not register the fact of transfer of neighboring rights, and thus, Plaintiff 2-1 and 2-2, the heir of Nonparty 1, did not assert that the said right cannot be asserted to the said Defendant.

3. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim

The plaintiff Shin Indou argued that he is the producer of the instant sound record based on the instant sound record agreement, and the defendant 3 asserted that he himself produced the instant sound record independently or jointly with Kim Indou, it first examines who is the producer of the instant sound record.

On the other hand, music record producers under the Copyright Act are producers of music records who first fixed music records, which are tangible music records, with the intention of reverting their neighboring rights to themselves, and they are the producers of music records. The facts acknowledged earlier, the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 9-11, 12, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence 6, 16-3, and 5, each part of Gap evidence 8-3, 11, 9-4, Gap evidence 9-3, and 5-1, Gap evidence 23-1 through 4, Gap evidence 24-1 through 9-9, and each part of Gap evidence 9-3, and 5-1, which are contrary thereto, lack of counter-proof evidence as follows.

① In addition to the creation of the grains recorded in the instant phonogram, Kim Young-tin directly selected the grains to be recorded in the instant phonogram from the author, the author, and obtained permission to use them from the author, and carried out the recording work in interference with the owner and the work room, and produced a multi-media tape by dividing the musical musical instruments and their own windows, and made part of the sound recorded in the said multi- tape by the editing process in order to harmonize the strongness of the musical instruments with the musical instruments and the sound of the instant phonogram, he directly took charge of the principal work to fix the sound sources of the instant phonogram, such as producing the master tape tape of the instant phonogram, etc., on the tangible material, through the editing process;

② According to the instant music agreement, the Plaintiff’s Newcom is in charge of LP, MC, CD production, sale, and public relations of the music record, and the supply of sound recordings and printed materials is in charge of the Plaintiff’s Mazine, and the Plaintiff’s Newcom must deduct 10% of the music record from the royalties that the Plaintiff’s Newcom must pay to the Kim-tin for business expenses and public relations expenses. As such, Plaintiff’s Newcom merely takes charge of the production and sale of the music record for sale, the Plaintiff’s Newcom bears the burden of the cost of sound recording, the cost of supplying printed materials, business expenses, and public relations expenses.

③ There seems to be no reason to view that the Plaintiff New Zealand paid expenses incurred in the production of the instant sound records, other than KRW 500,000,000,000, which was the first priority for the production of the instant sound records, to Kim Jong-seok. Since the said advance payment set off the royalties to be paid according to the volume of the music records sold in the future under the instant sound records agreement, it cannot be deemed as a monetary amount in the name of the cost of producing the

④ Of the instant sound records, the “Gre-top third musical music” was produced around March 20, 1992; “Dare-I” was produced around March 2, 1993 and had already been produced around October 12, 1993 upon which the instant sound agreement was concluded;

⑤ The Defendant 3 and Defendant 1 indicated each producer in the cover cover of “Gim-3rd single-to-sing-to-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-ming-m

6) On October 9, 1991, prior to the conclusion of the instant music agreement, Kim Jong-seok entered into a contract with the Seoul Music Co., Ltd. to pay the royalties to Kim Jong-seok after distributing and selling the music records. However, the royalty price set forth in the contract does not significantly vary between the royalty price set forth in the contract and the royalty price set in the instant music agreement. In light of the fact that the royalty price set forth in the contract entered into with the Plaintiff New Gain to take charge of the manufacture and sale of the music records for sale at the time similar to the instant music agreement, and that the royalty price set forth in the contract entered into with the Nonparty 4 and 5 does not differ significantly from the royalty price set forth in the instant music agreement.

The music record producer of the music record of this case shall be considered as the Kim Il-dae who directly fixed the sound sources of each of the music recorded in the music record of this case with the intention of reverting the neighboring rights of the music record of this case to himself, and furthermore, as to the fact that Kim Il-seok transferred the neighboring rights of the music record producer of the music record of this case to the plaintiff New Nano, it is not sufficient to recognize it by the statement of Gap evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on a different premise is without merit without further consideration.

4. Determination on the claims filed by Plaintiffs 2-1 and 2-2

A. Interpretation of the agreement of this case

According to the agreement of this case, the above plaintiffs owned 1/2 shares and the right to joint contract of all sound records related to the singing of Kim Jong-seok, which is to be produced in the future. The defendants asserted that the above copyright and neighboring rights were infringed, and the defendants denied and dispute this, they first examine the contents of the agreement of this case.

(1) On January 196, 196, as to who is the beneficiary of the royalty, Kim Jong-seok was deceased, there is a dispute between Defendant 3 claiming that the contract owner of the instant phonogram was transferred all rights to the instant phonogram from Kim Jong-seok before his birth on the ground that he is himself, and Nonparty 1 and his heir, who is his child, was succeeded to the above rights. Defendant 3 and Nonparty 2 filed an application for provisional injunction against payment of royalties to the Plaintiff Shin Don-based with the purport that the royalty should not be paid to Nonparty 1, and the claim for confirmation of the right to claim the royalty (Seoul Central District Court Decision 96Ga23097, the Central District Court Decision 96Da23097) against Nonparty 1 and the Plaintiff New Don-based on the premise that the agreement between Defendant 1 and the assignee of the instant phonogram was reached on June 26, 1996.

(2) The following circumstances are inferred from the content of the instant agreement, i.e., ① in the event of the production of new records, such as compilation records of the grains recorded in the instant records, in the future, a contract is concluded under an agreement between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 3, and the contract concluded without agreement is deemed null and void. The premise of the joint exercise of the right to the instant records is the premise of the joint exercise of the right to the instant records, and ② the ownership of neighboring rights to the instant records is subsequently discussed.

(3) The fact that, around October 2002, the defendant 3, who is recognized by Gap evidence Nos. 16-1 and 2, requested the non-party 1 to use 22 of the above 22 of the 22 of the 22 of the 22 of the 22 of the 200s as a editing record that the defendant 3 plans and sells the 22 of the 22 of the 22 of the 20s.

(4) In addition to the circumstances that it is difficult to deem that Nonparty 1 and Defendant 3 agreed on the right to receive royalties and the right to produce edited records, including the right to receive royalties under the instant music agreement and the right to produce edited records in the instant music records, on the premise of neighboring rights to the instant music records.

The purport of the agreement of this case is that prior to the agreement of this case, regardless of who is the legitimate right holder of neighboring rights to the sound records of this case, neighboring rights to the sound records of this case jointly belong to the non-party 1 and the defendant 3. However, in determining the method of exercising neighboring rights to the joint ownership, the royalties under the agreement of this case were received from the non-party 1's creation before the non-party 1's creation, and the non-party 2's receipt after the non-party 1's creation of new sound records by using the sound sources recorded in the sound records of this case in the future, the non-party 1 and the defendant 3 shall be allowed to exercise neighboring rights (the above plaintiffs cannot be seen as claiming that the non-party 1 was the author of the Kim Jong-seok's production of the sound records of this case, the author's copyright as the author of the sound records of this case, the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 2's assertion that the plaintiffs were entitled to the above part of this case' right.

B. Whether the acquisition of neighboring rights can be asserted against the Defendants

(1) Article 52 Subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act and its purport

According to Article 52 subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act, matters concerning the transfer or restriction on disposal of author's property right cannot be asserted against a third party unless it is registered. The above third party is a person excluding the parties related to the transfer of a right and the general successor of such rights and obligations, who has a legitimate interest in claiming the deficiency of registration, such as acquiring a legal status that is incompatible with the legal status of the parties involved in the transfer of a right. In light of the purport of the above provision, in a case where it is contrary to the good faith principle to prevent a third party from setting up a defense against a transferee on the ground of the deficiency of registration due to the reason that the third party knew of the transferor's breach of trust and actively participated in the act, etc., the third party is not included in the third party who is unable to set up against the change

(2) As to the defendant's records, defendant's Tye Code, defendant's Tye Eye Eye, and defendant's Seoul records

In light of the above facts, the non-party 1 transferred the neighboring rights to the music records of this case directly from or through the agreement of this case from the defendant 3 who succeeded to the rights and obligations of Kim Jong-kon in around 1993, or transferred the neighboring rights to the music records of this case by the agreement of this case. However, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2-1, and the non-party 2-2, as his heir, were transferred the neighboring rights to the music records of this case from the non-party 1 and the non-party 1, the general successor of Kim Jong-k-kin, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the general successor of Kim Jong-k-k-k's right, and the non-party 1, the non-party 1 and the above plaintiffs' right to the music records of this case, cannot be asserted against the defendant 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 3.

(3) As to the defendant 3 and the defendant 3 and the defendant 3333

In light of the facts acknowledged above, the defendant 3 succeeded to the neighboring rights of the records of this case as the heir of Kim Jong-seok, or succeeded to the shares of this case from the non-party 1 to whom the neighboring rights of the records of this case were transferred from Kim Jong-seok. Thus, the defendant 3 does not constitute a third party as provided in Article 52 of the Copyright Act because it constitutes the party involved in the alteration of rights or the general successor to the rights and obligations of Kim Jong-seok, and the defendant 3 also acknowledged the above facts and the purport of the whole arguments. In full view of the above facts and the purport of the arguments, the above defendant 3 was a company established on October 1, 202 by designating the plaintiff 3 as the representative director and jointly with the defendant 3, and it can be acknowledged that the production and distribution of the records of this case was led by the production and distribution of the records of this case, such as the provision of the records after concluding a music record distribution contract with the defendant Lee Jong-dong, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the defendant 21-21-21-2.

C. Determination on the claim against Defendant 3

(1) Infringement of neighboring rights

(A) According to the above facts, the neighboring rights of the producers and performers of the phonogram of this case shall be jointly reverted to the non-party 1 and the defendant 3, and the defendant 3 is obligated to enter into a contract with the non-party 1 in the case of producing new phonogram by using the sound sources recorded in the phonogram of this case. ① The non-party 3 shall not obtain the non-party 1's consent, and the non-party 3 shall be delivered KRW 50 million to the non-party 3, the representative director of the non-party 1, and the non-party 2 shall be entitled to the non-party 3's neighboring rights to use the phonogram of this case as an infringement on the non-party 1's neighboring rights to the non-party 2's music records of this case, and the non-party 3 shall be entitled to receive KRW 100,000 from the non-party 3 and the non-party 2's list of the music Record of this case's non-party 1, 2001.

Therefore, Defendant 3 is obligated to compensate for damages suffered by Nonparty 1, Plaintiff 2-1, and 2-2 due to the above infringement of neighboring rights, and the above claim for damages suffered by Nonparty 1 against Defendant 3 was inherited or inherited jointly by Nonparty 1’s wife on October 8, 2004, Plaintiff 2-1, Plaintiff 2-2, Defendant 3, who is the wife of Nonparty 1’s wife, Defendant 3, his child, and Nonparty 2, his child.

(나) 원고 2-1, 2-2는, 이 사건 합의가 소외 1을 대표로 하는 시댁 가족과 피고 3이라는 대립되는 양 당사자 사이에 이루어진 것이어서 이 사건 합의에 따른 소외 1의 권리가 피고 3측에는 대습상속되지 아니한다고 주장하나, 가사 이 사건 합의 당시 피고 3측이 소외 1의 권리를 상속받지 않기로 하였더라도, 상속개시 전에 이루어진 상속포기약정은 법에 정한 절차와 방식에 따르지 아니한 것이어서 효력이 없는 점 등을 참작하면, 위와 같이 합의하였다는 사정만으로는 피고 3과 소외 2가 소외 1의 재산을 대습상속하지 않는다고 볼 수 없으므로, 이 부분 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

(C) Defendant 3’s assertion

1) The above defendant believed that the non-party 3 was able to directly consent to the sale of the phonogram in the future through the non-party 6, who is in a relationship with the non-party 1. The defendant alleged that the non-party 1 paid 48.35 million won to the non-party 1 on November 6, 2002 prior to the production of the phonogram, and that the non-party 3 was allowed to use the sound sources recorded in the phonogram in this case. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the non-party 1 received 48.35 million won from the non-party 1 on November 2002, the non-party 1 did not have any dispute as to the fact that the non-party 1 received 4.835 million won from the above defendant around 202, but there is no lack of sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the above amount was able to use the sound sources recorded in the phonogram in this case, and there is no reason to prove that the non-party 2 was 14.28.

2) In addition, the above defendant alleged that the Compilation of this case was produced by using sound sources separate from the sound sources of this case, and thus, it did not duplicate the records of this case. However, the above defendant's assertion on this part is without merit, since the Compilation of this case was used as sound source for the windows of Kim Jong-seok as stated in the part on the No. 2 List No. 2 of the No. 2 and the part on the No. 2 of the No. 2 of the No. 2 and the part on the No. 2 of the No. 2 of the No. 2 of the No. 10 and the No. 2 of the No. 2 of the No. 2 of the No. 2 of the No. 10 and the No. 2 of the No.

(2) Scope of damages

(A) Method of calculating damages

1) According to Article 93(1) of the Copyright Act, in cases where a person who has author’s property right or other rights protected under this Act claims compensation from a person who has intentionally or negligently infringed on such rights against a person who has intentionally or negligently, the amount of such profits may be estimated as the amount of damages suffered by the infringer, etc. if the infringer has gained any profit from such act of infringement, and pursuant to Article 94 of the amended Copyright Act, which was amended on May 27, 2003 and enforced on July 1 of the same year, the court may recognize a reasonable amount of damages in consideration of the purport of pleading and the result of examination of evidence when it is difficult to calculate the amount of damages pursuant to Article 93, even though the existence of damages was recognized

2) The profits accrued from Defendant 3’s infringement of neighboring rights of Nonparty 1, 2-1, and 2-2 against the grains listed in the attached Table 2. The profits accrued from the infringement of neighboring rights of Nonparty 1, 2-1, and 2-2 against the grains listed in the attached Table 2. The profits accrued from the production and sale of the instant phonogram and the profits accrued from the production and sale of the instant phonogram by allowing the use of the multiple tape used for the production of the instant phonogram with respect to the instant phonogram and the profits accrued from the production and sale of the instant phonogram as indicated in the attached Table 2. The amount equivalent to the share ratio of Nonparty 1, 2-1, and 2-2 against the neighboring rights of the instant phonogram, among the profits accrued from the grains listed in the attached Table 2. The share ratio of Nonparty 1 and Defendant 3, who jointly reverted to Nonparty 1 and Defendant 3, and in the future, the share ratio was reasonable, in light of the content of the instant phonogram’s neighboring rights to Nonparty 1 and Defendant 3’s neighboring rights.

(B) As to F&C's land, C&C's records

On September 19, 200, Defendant 3 received KRW 50,000 from Nonparty 3 as consideration for allowing the use of the instant sound records with respect to the production of the instant sound records. From among the 16 valleys recorded on Annbro, Defendant 3 used a sound source for the same 11 column as those recorded on the instant sound records. Defendant 3 received 10,000 won for the production of the instant sound records [the amount of damages for the production of the instant sound records 200,000 won x 10,000 won for the use of the instant sound records x 20,000 won x 10,000 won for the use of the instant sound records x 10,000 won x 20,000 won for the use of the instant sound records x 10,000 won x 20,000 won for the use of the instant sound records x 10,000 won for the use of the instant sound records.

(C) With respect to Mawa Phonograms:

1) The amount of losses of Nonparty 1

In light of the following facts: Defendant 3 produced marina records around November 11, 2002 jointly with Defendant 1’s representative director, around 30, 200; Defendant 3 concluded a sales contract with Defendant 1’s 40% of the profits accrued from the sale of marina records x 20% of the profits accrued from Defendant 20% of the profits accrued from Defendant 1’s apportionment x 30% of the profits accrued from Defendant 20% of the profits accrued from Defendant 2’s sale of marina records 】 93% of the profits accrued from Defendant 1’s distribution 】 40% of the profits accrued from Defendant 1’s distribution 】 20% of the above profits accrued from Defendant 1’s distribution 】 93% of the profits accrued from Defendant 2’s distribution of the above profits accrued from Defendant 1 to June 2003.

2) The amount of losses of Plaintiffs 2-1 and 2-2

After October 8, 2004, when Nonparty 1 died, it is difficult for Defendant 3 to calculate the profit amount that Defendant 3 received by infringing the neighboring rights of Plaintiff 2-1 and 2-2 with respect to the part on the list M&D as of June 30, 2006, which was sought by the said Plaintiffs, as of June 30, 2006. However, in light of all the circumstances, such as the sound records sales amount from June 2003 to June 2003, and the share of neighboring rights of Nonparty 1, the amount of damage that Plaintiff 2-1 suffered during the above period is determined as KRW 9 million and the amount of damage that Plaintiff 2-2 suffered by the said Plaintiffs is determined as KRW 6 million.

(D) Plaintiff 2-1 and 2-2’s assertion of penalty

According to the agreement of this case, the above plaintiffs asserted that if one of the non-party 1 and defendant 3 violates the above agreement, 100 million won shall be paid to the other party as penalty, and this has the nature of penalty, so the defendant 3 is entitled to the penalty, separate from the amount of damages, and thus, it is presumed that the compensation amount is expected to be the liquidated damages pursuant to Article 398 (4) of the Civil Act, so special circumstances should be asserted and proved in order to interpret the penalty amount as a penalty for breach of contract. In light of the above, there is no evidence to acknowledge such circumstance, and rather, the amount of damages suffered by the non-party 1 is less than KRW 100 million as the defendant 3 violated the agreement of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the clause on penalty of this case has the nature of the liquidated damages that the party wants to treat the legal relationship in mind with the occurrence of damages. Thus, as long as the above plaintiffs claim damages as the damages actually occurred, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

(E) Defendant 3’s assertion of set-off

The above defendant asserted that, around September 200, the non-party 1 had permitted the use of the "non-party 1" and "non-party 1 to use the "non-party 1" in the production company of the JSA or its OST phonogram and the "non-party 1's letter" without obtaining the above defendant's consent. Thus, the non-party 1's compensation and damages claim against the non-party 1 set off the amount equivalent to the above compensation liability. However, as to the non-party 1's letter "non-fabs" and the "non-party 1's letter of non-party 1" without the above defendant's consent, it is not sufficient to recognize the use without the above defendant's consent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the above defendant's assertion is without merit.

(f) Sub-decisions

According to the above facts, the damages suffered by Nonparty 1 due to Defendant 3’s infringement of neighboring rights amounting to KRW 89,268,954 (i.e., the damages amounting to KRW 17,187,500 pertaining to C&C records + damages amounting to KRW 25,00,000 pertaining to C&C records + damages amounting to KRW 27,081,454 up to June 30, 2003 + damages amounting to KRW 20,000,000 pertaining to M&C records from July 1, 2003; damages amounting to Plaintiff 2-1 suffered from Plaintiff 2-1 is KRW 9 million and damages amounting to KRW 6 million.

Therefore, Defendant 3, (1) paid 47,258,122 won (=69,268,500 won) to Plaintiff 2-1 for the above 20-1, 205 annual amount of damages up to June 30, 203 + KRW 25,000 + KRW 27,081,454 (=69,268,954 x 3/7) annual amount of damages for each of the above 30-1, 205, 206-1, 206, 30.29 annual amount of damages for the above 20-1, 306, 305, 205, 30.6, 206, 30.6, 205, 206, 30.65, 205, 206, 36.7, 206, 207, 305,000 won

D. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Mad Trak Tri Museum

(1) Part of the claim for prohibition and prevention of infringement

In full view of the facts and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, Defendant 3, the representative director, and Defendant 3, jointly with Defendant 3, produced and distributed marina music records using the sound source on the part of the windows of Kim Jong-mix among the instant music records on November 11, 202. It can be recognized that Defendant 3 had used the sound source on the windows of Kim Young-mix as recorded in the attached Table 2. List of Infringement List No. Maweon among the music records of Maweon as recorded in the instant music records. Accordingly, Defendant 3, jointly with Defendant 3, produced and distributed Maweon music records, thereby infringing on the shares of the producers and performers of neighboring rights as well as the shares of neighboring rights as the neighboring rights of Plaintiffs 2-1, 2-2-2, and performers.

Therefore, the above defendant is obligated to suspend the production and distribution of marina records by inserting and distributing the grains in the Schedule 2. Attachment 2. The above defendant is obligated to delete the grains in the Schedule 2. Megian records from the master tape and completed sales-use records of marina records (The above plaintiffs seek suspension of the production and distribution of marina records itself, and destruction of the master tape and completed music records, but it seems possible to produce and distribute the above infringed music records by eliminating the above infringed music from the total of the Hegian music records as the grains in the Schedule 2. Infringement No. 2. The above infringed music did not contain the grains in the Schedule 2. The above infringed music does not accept the above part of the plaintiffs' claims since there is no reason to order the suspension of production, distribution, and disuse of the entire music records.

(2) Claim for damages

The defendant 1, 268,954, 2-1, 900, 9,000, and 6,000,000 won suffered by the plaintiff 2-2 as the joint tortfeasor, on the grounds that the non-party 1's neighboring rights share as the producer and performer, and the share of neighboring rights as the producer and performer of the non-party 2-1, 2-2 against the rice recorded in the list of the violation list No. 2. The non-party 1 infringed on the non-party 1's neighboring rights share and the share of neighboring rights as the producer. Thus, the non-party 1 is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the non-party 1. The damages suffered by the non-party 1 were 89,268,954, 2-1, and the damages suffered by the non-party 2-2 were 9,000,000, and the damages suffered by the non-party 3 and each of the above plaintiffs 1 as the share of inheritance and damages for the non-party 1.

5. Conclusion

If so, the claims against the plaintiff 2-1 and 2-2 against the defendant 3 were accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The claims against the plaintiff 2-1 and 2-2 and the claims against the defendant 1, 2-1 and 2-2 against the plaintiff 2-1 and 2-2 against the defendant 1, the defendant 2-1 and 2-2 are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1 and 2]: Omission of each list;

Judges Gangnam-gu (Presiding Judge) and Yang Jin-jin

1) The instant sound records were produced by means of producing a master tape through the editing process to harmonize the strongness and sound of the garas and the gales by dividing the windows of the gales and the gales of the gales of the gales, and the part of the sound recorded in the gales was produced by means of producing the master tape. The master tape of the instant sound was kept by the Plaintiff New Mana Museum, while the gales were kept by Kim Glak, while the gales were kept by Kim Glak, Defendant 3 kept after Kim Gla.