T.B.P Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Western, Attorneys Lee Heung-do et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

ELB Co., Ltd. (LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Dok-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

(A) The Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Gyeong-Gyeong et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

July 19, 2013

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,456,00,000 won with 5% interest per annum from May 2, 2013 to August 30, 2013, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims and independent party's claims are dismissed, respectively.

3. Part 2/5 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, the remainder by the defendant, and the part resulting from the participation by the independent party intervenor.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

1. Main elements;

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,485,392,00 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for correction of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Intervention by an independent party;

It is confirmed that an independent party intervenor and the plaintiff perform without permission at a place other than a multi-level film hall or a large-level screen image hall, or a right to claim damages for an act of selling 3D TV produced and sold in 3D TV. The defendant shall pay to an independent party intervenor an amount calculated by the ratio of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the application for participation of the independent party to the case to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Status of the parties

The Plaintiff is a company engaging in the production and sale of videos produced by “○○○○,” “△△△△△△△△,” which is a multi-level visual video product, and “△△△△△△,” and the Defendant is a manufacturer of electronic equipment using each of the above visual works by means of demonstration, etc. in 3D TV, and an independent party intervenor (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) is a public corporation established for the purpose of promoting trade investment.

(b) Conclusion of a contract for the production and distribution of video works under paragraphs 1 and 2;

1) On May 30, 2007, the Plaintiff produced video works No. 1 with the Intervenor’s investment, and entered into a distribution agreement with the Intervenor on May 30, 2007 with respect to the first video works (hereinafter “instant distribution agreement”).

Article 1 Purpose

The purpose of this Agreement is to grant “A” the right to distribute motion pictures” to “B” (Plaintiff) for a given period and to provide for matters concerning licensing agreements under which “B” pays the price to “A”.

Article 2 Scope of Distribution Rights

Paragraph 1(b) “B” has the right to distribute “motion pictures” for three-dimensional images and large-scale screen images. This contract does not restrict the right of participants or Korean government agencies to use motion pictures for public purposes without receiving admission fees.

Paragraph 2, “B” shall have the right to distribute all the world by December 31, 201: Provided, That the contract period may be extended by one year by mutual agreement.

Paragraph 3 (3) "B" shall not sell or transfer the right to distribute to a third party.

Where paragraph 4(a) “A” wishes to distribute motion pictures in flat image such as DVD, “B” is entitled to participate in negotiations in a position equal to that of a person subject to negotiations.

Article 3 Costs of Distribution Rights

Paragraph 1 of this paragraph, “B” shall pay US$300,000 to “B”. The stop is the final obligation of “B” issued at the same time as the contract is concluded. “B” shall, at the same time, pay to “A” by the end of December 2007, the remainder 100,000,000 out of the remainder 2 million, excluding the base stop 100,000,000.

Paragraph 2, the opening of mining under this Agreement shall be 50% of the total rent, excluding marketing costs. Marketing costs shall be deemed 30% of the total rent, unless otherwise specified. The total rent means the entire profit that “B” directly displays motion pictures or obtains by granting a license to a third party.

Article 4 Marketing Activities

Paragraph 1 (1) "B" shall have the right to revise a film for marketing: Provided, That the consent of "A" shall be obtained in advance.

Paragraph 2(b)(B) has the right to produce various data for marketing.

Paragraph 3 (3) "B" shall have the right to determine rent for a film.

Article 6 Copyright

All rights, including copyright and moral rights, related to the film in paragraph (1) of this Article, including copyrights, belong to “A”. “B” refers to all promotional materials produced by a third party who enters into an agreement with “B” or “B” and to the appropriate location of exhibition halls as follows:

Coptyr RightscKTRA 2005 Acc.

2) On May 24, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Sungsung-gun on the production and distribution of the second video works (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the following contents (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Convention is to provide for the matters to be observed, such as joint investment, production, distribution, profit, etc., by “A” and “B”, in 2006, the Cr. 2) the Cr. Cr. C. C. C. C. C. C., and C. C. 4D.

Article 2 (Production Price)

① The total cost of production of video-based ten thousand won (Won 1,608,160,000) shall be calculated on the basis of one-day one thousand full-time one hundred and sixty-eight million won (Won 1,608,160,000), and among which the “A” shall be calculated on the basis of one-half-year one thousand twenty percent (Won 964,896,000) and the “B” shall be calculated on the basis that the amount of “B” shall be forty percent (Won 964,896,000) equivalent to forty percent.

Article 10 (Production)

Cratts are produced under the supervision of "B".

Article 11 (Copyright)

In 2006, the copyright of the Cr.e., the Cr., the Cr. Cr. C. C. C. C. 4D in 2006.

Article 12 (Rights to be Distributed)

“A” shall grant the exclusive domestic and foreign distribution authority to “B” at the time of completion of the production of video monitoring services.

Provided, That at the time of distribution, the approval of the "A" shall be obtained, and the video distribution right for the movie theaters in the high-scal group shall have "A".

Article 13 (Distribution of Profits)

① “B” in distributing a film to a party image, shall collect the daily amount of KRW 643,264,000,000 (Won 643,264,000) from the revenues, and the prior collection period shall not exceed four years. The distribution of revenues shall be 30% “A” and “B” if the prior investment cost was recovered or not recovered after four years. However, the incidental expenses necessary for distributing shall be calculated at 40% and borne by “B”.

C. The defendant's use of video works Nos. 1 and 2

1) From June 2009, the Defendant had been engaged in negotiations with the Plaintiff for concluding a contract for the use of 3D Cinematographic Works for the promotion of 3D TV. During the said negotiations, the Plaintiff first produced each of the above Cinematographic Works with the Defendant at the time of the display of 3D TV and supplied it to the Defendant at the time of the display of 3D TV, and first, at the Defendant’s request, at the time of the display of 15 minutes around July 2009, the amount of 15 minutes and 13 minutes of the said Works to the Defendant, a manufacturer of 3D TV disc, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “Clule-rath”). The Criths, a producer of 13 minutes of the said Works, were sent to the Defendant.

2) The Defendant used Cinematographic Works Nos. 1 and 2 produced and supplied as above as follows.

The time limit at ○’s agency: 32 sets of video works from September 2009 to May 2, 2010 to 3DTV 227 of the Defendant agency’s 3DTV from February 2010 to May 2010, respectively.

○ Stage show, etc.: Stage show show (from January 7, 2010 to October 10) in 2010 and 3D painted at the EXE building site report room (from March 31, 2010 to April 2, 201).

○ Start-up at the entrance of the film theater: A start-up from March 2010 to May 2, 2010 through 3D TV for the Defendant’s publicity at the entrance of 34 domestic film theaters (CGV).

Provision to ○ Consumers: Provision to the consumers who purchased the Defendant’s 3D TV by a bundle 92 Bundle 3) bund 92 sets out a video recording 1 and 2

○ Distribution to the Defendant’s agency: Shall contain a video file of Nos. 1 and 2 in USB and distribute it to the Defendant’s agency.

D. Negotiations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

The Plaintiff and the Defendant continued negotiations to enter into a contract for the use of video works Nos. 1 and 2 by exchanging the draft use contract several times through e-mail, but eventually, the negotiations for the conclusion of the above contract had not been reached on May 10, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 18, 24, 26 through 33 (which include various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9 through 12, 15 through 22, and Byung evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

(a) Main safety objection against the application for intervention by an independent party;

Of the Intervenor’s independent party intervention, the part seeking confirmation of the absence of the claim for damages against the Plaintiff regarding the unauthorized Use, etc. of the Video No. 1 against the Plaintiff is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is the distribution right holder of the said Video No. 1 and filed a claim against the Defendant for restitution of unjust enrichment or damages from the unauthorized Use of the said Video No. 1. In a situation where the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is the copyright holder of the said Video No. 1, the Intervenor’s assertion that all of the above rights exist in himself/herself, who is the copyright holder of the said Video No. 1, is the most effective and appropriate means to obtain confirmation against the Plaintiff that the said claim for restitution of unjust enrichment or the claim

B. Main Safety Defenses against the main claim

The lawsuit of this case filed by the plaintiff with the authorization of the plaintiff from the intervenor who is the copyright holder of the video works Nos. 1 and 2 and the Gosung-gun is unlawful as a discretionary action of a third party, which is not permitted in principle under the current Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the plaintiff sought his right as the distributor of the video works Nos. 1 and 2 as the lawsuit of this case. As examined below, the plaintiff acquired the "distribution right" including the author's property right, such as performance right, distribution right, etc. as to the video works Nos. 1 and 2 by concluding the distribution contract and agreement with the intervenor and Gosung-gun. Thus, the safety objection of the first defendant is without merit.

3. Judgment on the Intervenor’s claim

A. Summary of the intervenor's assertion

The copyright holder of the first film is the intervenor, and the plaintiff is granted the right to use the first film from the intervenor pursuant to the distribution contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff cannot claim for return of unjust enrichment or damages against the defendant, a third party without permission. Even if the plaintiff's property right including the right to performance and the right to distribute the first film, etc. is acknowledged to the plaintiff in domestic affairs, in light of the time and circumstances of conclusion of the distribution contract of this case, the author's property right related to the first film under the above distribution contract is limited to the use of the second film and the use of the third screen screen, and the copyright for other use is reserved against the intervenor (the "three-dimensional video use" under Article 2 (1) of the distribution contract of this case is merely a clerical error in the "three-dimensional video tolerance").

Therefore, the Intervenor and the Plaintiff confirmed that the claim for return of unjust enrichment or the claim for damages arising from the Defendant’s unauthorized use of the video work No. 1 between the Intervenor and the Plaintiff was not the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, who used the video work No. 1 without permission, is obligated to pay the Intervenor KRW 25,640,595,000 around the part of the damages arising from the infringement of copyright, and KRW 728,00,000,000 around the beginning. Thus, the Intervenor first sought payment of KRW 10,000 as part

(b) Markets:

1) Whether the right to distribute under the instant distribution contract is merely a claim right

Article 45(1) of the current Copyright Act provides that “The author’s property right may be transferred in whole or in part,” and Article 46(1) provides that “the author’s property right may allow another person to use his/her work,” thereby distinguishing between “transfer” of copyright and “permission for use.” Since the legal nature of the right to distribute that the Plaintiff has depending on the interpretation of the distribution contract in this case differs, it first is whether the distribution contract is a copyright transfer contract or a license agreement.

In general, the interpretation of a juristic act is clearly confirming the objective meaning which the parties gave to the act of representation, and where the objective meaning is not clearly expressed by the language and text expressed by the parties, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, general sense of social justice and equity, and transaction norms, by comprehensively considering the contents of the language and text, the motive and circumstances leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent of the parties to the juristic act, transaction practices, etc., to comply with the social justice and equity ideology (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da29130, Jul. 30, 1996, etc.). In full view of the following circumstances revealed from the above facts, the plaintiff entered into the distribution contract of this case from the intervenor who is the copyright holder of the first video product of this case to the plaintiff on December 31, 2011, and the purpose of the contract is limited to multi-level video use and large video view use, and therefore, it is not reasonable to interpret that the plaintiff without permission includes the right to claim compensation for damages arising from the plaintiff's use of reproduction or distribution.

A) Article 2 of the instant distribution contract provides that, except for “the case where an intervenor or the Korean government agency uses a video work for public purposes without receiving an admission fee,” the Plaintiff has the right to distribute the video work No. 1 to the entire world for the purpose of multi-level and large-level screen video exhibition by December 31, 201. According to the said provision, the Plaintiff has an independent and exclusive right for the use of the video work No. 1 within the said time and usage scope, and the Intervenor, a copyright holder, cannot, in principle, use the video work No. 1, except for the exceptional cases prescribed in the said provision.

B) According to Article 3 of the distribution contract of this case, the Plaintiff should pay the Plaintiff the “flyingness” of USD 300,000 in return for the right to distribute, and in addition to the above stop, in a case where the Plaintiff’s cumulative amount of the Plaintiff’s video work “learning opening (50% of the total rent excluding the marketing cost)” exceeds that of the Plaintiff’s video work No. 1, the difference shall be paid annually to the intervenors. As such, the Plaintiff paid a considerable amount in return for the right to distribute to the intervenors.

C) Article 3(2) of the instant distribution contract defines the mining opening as “50% of the rent, excluding the marketing cost, from the total rent,” and it is interpreted that the Plaintiff has the right to lease the video recording No. 1 independently.

D) According to Article 4 of the distribution contract of this case, the Plaintiff has the right to modify the first video works or produce various data for marketing (Article 1 and 2). In particular, the Plaintiff has the right to independently determine the rent for the first video works (Article 3). Paragraph (5) provides that prior consultation with the Intervenor shall be made only when a lease contract where the interests of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor conflict with each other is concluded (Article 5). Such a series of provisions are interpreted as being prescribed under the premise that the Plaintiff can exclusively exercise the right to exclusively distribute the first video works.

2) Whether the Plaintiff’s right to distribute is limited to “three-dimensional video audience use” and “large flat video audience use”

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 evidence, the intervenor entered into a distribution contract on January 19, 2006 with Octograp Ltd. (hereinafter "Rotop") that is a company of the nationality of the United States of America, and the plaintiff participated in the distribution contract as the agent of Rotop. The plaintiff participated in the above distribution contract. According to the above distribution contract, the copyright of No. 1 video works is the intervenor, and the intervenor entered into the distribution contract of this case that he grants Rotototoon the right to distribute for "three-dimensional video tolerance" and large flat video tubes by December 31, 2010. The intervenor entered into the distribution contract of this case with the plaintiff after cancelling the right to distribute the above distribution contract of Matopp on May 30, 2007.

However, as long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court should recognize the existence of the expression of intent and its contents as stated in the disposal document unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the contents of the statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6753, Jun. 11, 2002, etc.). It is apparent in the above phrase that the Plaintiff’s distribution right under Article 2(1) of the distribution contract of this case concerns “three-dimensional video use” and “large-level video tolerance use.” The Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no evidence that the contract of this case becomes void by signing a distribution contract of this case as a substitute for the “three-dimensional video tolerance use.” Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no reason to acknowledge the validity of the contract of this case as a substitute for the “three-dimensional video distribution contract of this case.”

(c) Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment or damage claim arising from the Defendant’s unauthorized use of the video work 1 is against the Plaintiff, who is a distributor of the said video work. Therefore, the Intervenor’s claim against the Plaintiff is without merit, and the Intervenor’s claim against the Defendant, which is premised on the existence of the aforementioned claim for return of unjust enrichment or damage claim against the Intervenor,

4. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) Main cause of claim: Claim for restitution of unjust enrichment based on the right of distribution; and

The Plaintiff acquired the exclusive right to distribute video works Nos. 1 and 2 by concluding the instant distribution contract and agreement with the Intervenor and the Sungsung-gun respectively. Each of the above distribution rights differs from the in personam right that is merely a right to exploit copyrighted works in the Plaintiff’s name as the right to lease copyrighted works. However, the Defendant, who is the right to distribute video works Nos. 1 and 2, obtained unjust profits by using each of the above video works without permission, without concluding a lease contract with the Plaintiff, who is the right to distribute the copyrighted works, and thus, is obliged to return the Plaintiff’s interest equivalent to the royalty for each of

2) Preliminary cause: Claim for damages arising from infringement of author’s property right

The Plaintiff acquired the right to distribute video works Nos. 1 and 2 in trust by concluding the instant distribution contract and agreement with the Intervenor and the Sungsung-gun respectively. Since the Defendant violated the Plaintiff’s right to distribute the author’s property right by using video works No. 1 and 2 without permission by intention or negligence, the Plaintiff is obliged to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the infringement.

B. Return of unjust enrichment

1) According to the above facts, the defendant, without any legal grounds, shall be deemed to have obtained profits by using the video works Nos. 1 and 2 that the plaintiff acquired from the copyright holders of the video works Nos. 1 and 2 and thereby, thereby causing damage equivalent to the plaintiff's profits. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return such profits to the plaintiff.

2) As to this, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff implicitly consented to the gratuitous use of the video works Nos. 1 and 2, and thus, the Plaintiff provided each of the above video works to the Defendant in the course of negotiations for concluding a contract for the use of the video works No. 1 and 2 as seen earlier. However, it is insufficient to confirm that the Plaintiff implicitly consented to the Defendant’s use of each of the above video works regardless of whether the contract for the use of the video works No. 1 and 2 was concluded, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3) In addition, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant, the third party, who was the third party, cannot claim return of unjust enrichment due to the use of the video works without permission, merely because the Plaintiff’s right to distribute under the instant distribution contract and agreement was an obligatory right to obtain permission from the copyright holder.

As seen in Section 3-B(1) of the Convention, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, a copyright holder, acquired the right to distribute intellectual property rights, such as performance rights and distribution rights, with respect to the video works of this case. ② The above facts acknowledged are as follows: (i) Article 12 of the Convention provides that the High Military shall grant the Plaintiff the exclusive domestic and foreign right to distribute the video works of this case except for the right to distribute the videos in the High Military; (ii) Article 13(1) of the Convention provides that the Plaintiff may collect the Plaintiff’s preferential right to distribute the video works of this case from the revenue through distribution of the above video works of this case; and (iii) Article 13(2) of the Convention provides that, on July 2010, the High Military shall grant the Plaintiff the right to distribute the video works of this case, including the right to distribute the video works of this case; and (iv) Article 2 of the Convention provides that the Plaintiff may exercise the right to distribute the right to distribute the video works of this case against the Plaintiff.

C. Scope of return of unjust enrichment

1) Calculation of the amount of unjust enrichment

A) The defendant's profits from using the video works Nos. 1 and 2 without permission are equivalent to the above fees for each video work. In light of the appraiser's appraisal result, the appraiser's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings by the non-party, the appraiser can recognize the fact that the defendant calculated the amount equivalent to the fees that the non-party acquired by using the video works Nos. 1 and 2 without permission (the amount excluding the amount of KRW 1,456,000, which is rejected in the following) and the detailed calculation details are as follows.

○ 1,000,000 won for video works : 4) 336 + 28 minutes 】 60 seconds ± 5 seconds : 1,000,000 won for video works

○ Main production cost of video works Nos. 1 and 2: 36,000,000 won (=1,000,000 x 336C)

Additional production cost (70%) 1,120,000,000 won = 336,00,000 won + 784,000,000 won + 336,000,000 won + 336,00,000 won ¡À 30 x 70)

○ Additional amount for reproduction, distribution, etc. of video works: 336,00,000 won (=1,120,000,000 won)

○ Final appraised Amount: KRW 1,456,00,000 (= KRW 1,120,000,000 + KRW 336,00,000)

B) The Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 1,029,392,00 calculated by the appraiser as unjust enrichment even in addition to the above KRW 1,456,00,00 as well as damages for delay from the above KRW 1,456,00. As such, according to the Nonparty’s appraisal result, the appraiser calculated the amount equivalent to the rent of KRW 1,456,00,00 for the first and second video works from October 209 to the point of view that “the Defendant used the first and second video works from October 2009, and the balance should be paid within one month after delivery, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of unjust enrichment from November 209 to 2013. As such, the Plaintiff did not appear to have applied the above legal interest rate of KRW 20 to the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of unjust enrichment from KRW 200,000,000 for total interest rate of KRW 30,000,000 for each of the above reasons.

2) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A) On the premise of concluding a contract for the use of each of the above videos 1 and 2, the Defendant asserted that the bona fide beneficiary using each of the above videos with the Plaintiff’s consent constitutes a bona fide beneficiary using each of the above videos 1 and 2, and thus, pursuant to Article 748(1) of the Civil Act, the Defendant is obligated to return the benefits arising from the use of each of the above videos 1 and 2 to the extent of existing existence. However, the following circumstances revealed from the above recognition, namely, it was unclear whether the Defendant entered into a contract or not at the time of the commencement of negotiations for the use contract at the time when the Defendant was provided with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff negotiated with the Defendant in order to earn profits from the lease of the above videos 1 and 2, and provided each of the above videos at the Defendant’s request in advance, and the Defendant also seems to have been well aware of such circumstances. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B) The defendant asserts that the appraisal result of the appraiser's above appraisal result is unreasonable and objective, and that there is no credibility because the appraiser shows a biased point of view on the defendant. However, in the following circumstances, the profits the defendant acquired by using the video works Nos. 1 and 2 without permission due to the infringement of the plaintiff's right to distribute, including the right of public performance and the right of distribution as to each of the above video works, and thus, it can be deemed that the plaintiff suffered damages due to the infringement. According to Article 126 of the Copyright Act, if the court is recognized as having caused damages but it is difficult to calculate the amount of damages pursuant to Article 125 of the Copyright Act, considering all the evidence and all the circumstances revealed in the whole pleadings submitted in this case, considering the purport of the pleading and the result of the examination of evidence, it is difficult to view that the unjust enrichment the defendant obtained by using the video works without permission is considerably unreasonable or that the above amount is considerably excessive, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

In principle, user fees for video content, such as video content Nos. 1 and 2, should be determined by a contract between the parties to the transaction, but in this case there was no specific agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on user fees for each of the above video contents. Furthermore, unlike the case of music records, there was no established or fixed practice regarding the calculation of user fees in the domestic market for video content.

The production cost of the video works is likely to be assessed as a fixed value without agreement between the parties, depending on the process, method, scale, etc. of the video works. However, the international market price has been formed with respect to the production cost of the video works used for advertising and public relations of the home appliances.

○ The Defendant used each of the above video works in order to publicize 3D TVs through the display of multi-level video works, which are multi-level video works, and to promote consumer's purchase of products. This constitutes "POP (OF POP 6)". The purpose of use of the above video works is to calculate user fees, as it is an important factor in calculating user fees. Thus, even if the same video works exist, it is inappropriate to calculate user fees based on the case, if the purpose of use is different.

In general, the term of the contract for the use of video works is the practice of industry. Unless otherwise specified, the term of the contract is calculated on a yearly basis, and even if the contract for the use of video works submitted by the plaintiff or the defendant is not a very short term, the term of the contract is one year for multiple contracts. In this case, there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the term of the contract, and the defendant used approximately 9,10 months for approximately 1 and 2 video works, taking into account the above circumstances, the appraiser calculated the user fee for each of the above video works on a yearly basis as a minimum unit.

In light of the defendant's purpose of use of video works, it is reasonable to calculate the user fee of each video work as the area using "domestic and foreign" as well as "domestic and foreign".

○ The Plaintiff provided 15 minutes of video works and 13 minutes of video works. The Defendant used each of the above video works as they are or extracted a certain part, thereby processing three minutes in the case of video works 1, and two minutes in the case of video works 2, each of the above video works shall be calculated on the basis of 28 minutes of the total quantity (=15 minutes of video works 15 minutes + 2 minutes of video works 13 minutes).

The profits from the sales of the video contents are classified into the primary license (the profits from the first screen, the profits from the broadcasting commission, etc.) and the second license (the profits from the sales of the first license after the creation of the video contents), 3, 4 license (the profits from sales and rebroadcasting commission, etc. which are produced after the opening of the film after the completion of the first license), and 1, 3, and 4 license (the profits from the sale of the second license, the broadcasting license of the film, the profits from rebroadcasting, the profits from the distribution of other visual contents, etc.). However, the use fee cannot be calculated by applying the actual production cost different from the first license as the profits from the first license.

○ “Stockholm Fotage” is defined as making a database of the pages worth re-useable among the images taken for the production of other contents prior to, and reproducing and lending them. As such, Stockholm Foting video is basically classified as video works corresponding to the third or fourth license, its nature, purpose of use, period of use, area of use, quantity of use, and licensing form, and its price has been used in the video industry for a long time, and thus forming a certain price system in the global content market.

○○ In Stockholm, the price is calculated by converting video works into clp. In the case of video works 1 and 2, the appraiser, in the case of video works 1 and 2, but the short page was converted into 5 seconds in consideration of the fact that there are many parts consisting of 1 to 2 seconds, and referring to the price of various Stockholm PP advertising companies, the average cl.e., USD 1,00 ($ 1,000 if the amount is converted into 1,000,000) was determined as 1,000 won.

In the case of ○ film content, the size and composition of the production cost vary depending on the content, method, size, etc., but they are composed of 30% of the production cost in general, 30% of the production cost, 30% of the production cost, and 40% of the follow-up work phase. The price of Stockholm food works is equivalent to 30% of the total cost (the production phase) as raw materials for which no additional work is carried out. Therefore, in order to calculate the amount equivalent to the user fee for the completed video works, such as 1 and 2 video works, an amount equivalent to the additional production cost (the pre-production + the subsequent work) of 70% should be added.

○ Meanwhile, according to the Stockholm price system, even in cases of permanent lease due to the impossibility of resale and reproduction of video works, only the lessee has the right to use, and if it is intended to distribute it to consumers, additional costs should be paid. Therefore, since the Defendant’s reproduction and distribution of video works in the form of Blup disc or USB is the same as the distribution of video works itself beyond the mere time of video works, it should be considered as an additional element for calculating user fees. As such, the appraiser added an amount equivalent to 30% of user fees by taking account of the fact that the value of “saved and heard”, which is the concept owned in the music market, is higher than that of “a simple hearing,” which is the concept of “a simple hearing,” which is the concept of ownership in the music record market.

(d) Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,456,00,00 won for unjust enrichment arising from the use of the first and second preliminary claim and to the plaintiff 1,456,000 won for such conjunctive claim, and to the extent that it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the scope and existence of the obligation to perform the claim from May 2, 2013 to August 30, 2013, which is the date of this decision, as stated in the Civil Act, and to pay damages at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings until the day of full payment (see Supreme Court Decision 202Da2398, Oct. 25, 2002). Since the plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment is not a preparatory claim, the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from the infringement of author's property right cannot be viewed as a matter of interpreting the plaintiff's intent in the lawsuit, and the plaintiff's claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is excluded from the plaintiff's claim for damages.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the principal lawsuit is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff and the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges in writing (Presiding Judge) and vice versa;

1) The first video work refers to a video work.

2) The term “videos” refers to videos 2.

3) The sale of a particular product means the sale of the product together with another product.

Note 4) It means a unit by which the entire video works are divided into individual pages.

Note 5) The appraisal of the instant usage fee was made.

Note 6) Advertisement is made through the product itself and in the store, the advertising video work promoting the purchase of this consumer together with the product.