[1] In a case where a work is modified within the scope of author’s explicit or implied consent, whether it constitutes infringement on the author’s right of integrity (negative), and the standard for determining whether the author who signed a publishing contract consented to the modification of the work and the scope of consent

[2] Where the author consents to the modification of a work within the scope of complying with an administrative disposition under a publishing contract, whether the modification of the other party’s work pursuant to an administrative disposition, which is unlawful, but cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course, constitutes an infringement on

[3] In a case where Company B, which produced textbooks with Gap et al. upon entering into a publication contract with Gap et al., revised, published, and distributed some of the textbooks according to the Minister of Education, Science and Technology’s suspension period, the case holding that the above revision does not constitute infringement upon Gap et al.’s right of integrity for the above textbooks within the scope agreed by Gap et

[1] The author has the right to maintain his/her identity as the content, form, and title of a work (Article 13(1) of the Copyright Act). In cases where the author alters a work within the scope of the author’s explicit or implied consent, it does not constitute infringement on the author’s right of integrity. Whether the author who has concluded a publication contract for a work consented to the modification of the work, and the scope of consent shall be determined specifically and individually by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the nature of publication contract, the process and contents of conclusion, the contractual parties’ status and mutual relationship, the purpose of publication, the purpose of publication, the use

[2] Even if an administrative disposition is unlawful, its effect is not denied without permission due to its defect, except where the defect is significant and obvious, and there is a ground to deem it invalid as a matter of course. Thus, if the author consents to a work modification within the scope of complying with an administrative disposition under a publishing contract, the work modification of the other party to the contract according to the administrative disposition does not constitute infringement on the author’s right of integrity, unless there is any ground to deem it invalid as a matter of course even if the administrative disposition is unlawful.

[3] The case holding that in case where Company B, upon entering into a publication contract with Party A, etc., produced textbook with Party B, etc. revised, published, and distributed a part of the textbook according to the Minister of Education, Science and Technology’s authorization, considering the nature and content of publishing contract, the details and submission process of the consent submitted by Party A, etc. and Party B when applying for textbook authorization, the status and mutual relationship with Party B, publication purpose, and the nature of the textbook, it is reasonable to view Party B, etc. consented to the modification of the textbook to the extent that Party B complies with the correction instruction issued by the Minister of Education, Science and Technology at the time of entering into a publication contract and submission of consent, and there is no reason to regard the above correction instruction corresponding to an administrative disposition as invalid as a matter of course, and thus, Company B’s publication and distribution do not constitute infringement on Party A’s right of integrity,

[1] Article 13(1) of the Copyright Act / [2] Articles 1(1) and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 13(1) of the Copyright Act / [3] Articles 1(Administrative Disposition and General Provisions) and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 13(1) of the Copyright Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da31309 Decided December 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 598) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2007Da12012 Decided April 29, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 964)

Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Han-gu, Attorneys Kim Hong-seok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gold Publishing Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Woo-gn et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na92144 decided August 25, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The author has the right to maintain the identity of his/her work content, form, and title (Article 13(1) of the Copyright Act). In cases where a work is modified within the scope of the author’s explicit or implied consent, it does not constitute infringement on the author’s right of integrity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da31309, Dec. 24, 1992). Furthermore, whether the author who has entered into a publishing contract with respect to a work consented to the modification of the work, and the scope of consent should be determined specifically and individually by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the nature of publication contract, the reasons for and contents of the contract, the status and trade relation of the parties to the contract, the purpose of publication, the purpose of publication, the use of publication, and the nature of the work. Meanwhile, even if an administrative disposition is unlawful, its effect cannot be denied without permission for reason of defect, and even if there is no reason to deem it invalid due to an infringement on the author’s right of integrity in the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 207Da12, etc.).

2. We examine in light of the above legal principles.

A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

(1) On March 24, 2001, the Plaintiffs and the Nonparty (hereinafter the Nonparty omitted, and only referred to as the “Plaintiffs”) entered into a contract for the publication of textbooks (hereinafter referred to as the “instant publication contract”) with the Defendant Gold Publishing Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “gold Publishing Co., Ltd.”) in accordance with the 7th curriculum of authorized textbooks of the Ministry of Education (hereinafter referred to as the “Ministry of Education, Science and Technology”) and prepared the Plaintiff of the textbook of this case in accordance with the 7th curriculum of authorized textbooks of the Ministry of Education (hereinafter referred to as the “Ministry of Education, Science and Technology”) and deliver them to Defendant Gold Publishing, and Defendant Gold Publishing Co., Ltd entered into a contract for the publication of textbooks (hereinafter referred to as the “instant publication contract”).

(2) However, in paragraph (6) of the instant publication contract, “Plaintiffs shall deliver the Plaintiff (Plaintiffs) and materials for revision and revision so that they can complete the work within the prescribed period of time when the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology gives orders for revision and revision of the instant textbook, and Defendant Gold Publishing Company shall revise and reform the contents of the instant textbook within the prescribed period of time in accordance with the Plaintiffs’ request and the instruction of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.”

(3) On December 8, 2001, after the conclusion of the instant publication contract, the Plaintiffs and Defendant Geumsung filed an application for authorization of the instant textbook with the Korea Institute of Curriculum Evaluation and Planning (hereinafter “instant consent”) and submitted a written consent stating that “In the exercise of the copyright and publication rights of the instant textbook, the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development (hereinafter “the current Minister of Education, Science and Technology”) consents to the implementation of the instructions of the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development for the smooth publication and supply of the curriculum books and the prevention of educational misconduct, and, in the event of the violation, the Minister of Education and Human Resources Development (hereinafter “the Minister of Education, Science and Technology”) will take any measures, such as the suspension of publication rights.”

B. The nature and contents of the publication contract of this case as indicated in the above facts, the contents and the reasons why the agreement of this case were submitted, the status and trade relation between the plaintiffs and the defendant Geumsung publishing company, the purpose of publication, the purpose of the textbook of this case, the character of the textbook of this case, and the former Rules on Textbooks (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 17634, Jun. 25, 2002) which were in force at that time, if it is necessary to modify the contents of the textbook, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology may order the author of the authorized book to correct the authorized book (Article 26(1)) (Article 26(1)), and if the author violates the order for correction, the Minister may cancel the authorization or suspend the publication within the scope of one year (Article 47 subparag. 1) (Article 47). In full view of the fact that when the plaintiffs did not comply with the order for correction, it is reasonable to see that the textbook of this case may have been published due to the cancellation or suspension of authorization.

C. However, according to the records, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology recommended correction of certain contents of the textbook of this case on October 30, 2008, but the plaintiffs expressed their opinion that it is impossible for them to accept correction recommendation of a considerable number of items among them. As to the textbook of this case, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology issued the correction order of this case as to the textbook of this case. Accordingly, according to the time of suspension of collection of this case, the Defendant Geumsung published and distributed the textbook of this case through the Defendant Korean-authorized Text Text as proxy for the publication of middle and high school authorized textbooks.

Therefore, insofar as there is no reason to deem the instant revision instruction that constitutes an administrative disposition as null and void as a matter of course, the Defendants’ revision, publication, and distribution of the instant textbook to implement the instant revision instruction is within the scope of the Plaintiffs’ consent, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes an infringement on the Plaintiffs’ right of integrity regarding the instant textbook.

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legal act and interpretation of Acts and subordinate statutes, right to integrity,

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)