[1] Whether a work, other than a work of art, architectural work, or photographic work, under the Copyright Act, constitutes an infringement of an author’s property right in the manner of exhibition (negative)

[2] As to the facts charged in violation of the Copyright Act that the Defendant displayed the translation work jointly translated and published with Party A in a single translation on the Internet site without Party A’s permission, thereby infringing Party A’s property right, and at the same time, indicated a person other than the author as the author, the case holding that the judgment below convicting Defendant of all of the facts charged in violation of the

[1] Articles 11(3) and 19 of the Copyright Act list the works subject to the protection of the right of exhibition only as “works of art, architectural works, or photographic works,” and thus, the author’s property right of a work other than works of art, etc. shall not be infringed by the method of exhibition.

[2] The case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, which found Defendant guilty of all the charges on the charges of violating the Copyright Act, since the above translation constitutes "a literary work" and the above translation does not infringe the author's property right as a means of exhibition, on the grounds that the above translation is not the original translation itself, but it merely posted the signs of the book, such as author, author, author, publishing year, publication year, page, price, etc., and thus it cannot be seen as the act of publishing the work by expressing a person other than the author as the author, on the ground that the translation of the original translation of "kniver theory", which the Defendant jointly translated and published with Party A, was solely translated without Party A's permission, and displayed on the website of the Korean Counseling Institute as a link to Party A's Internet homepage, and at the same time, the original translation is also an act of publishing the work

[1] Articles 11(3), 19, and 136(1) of the Copyright Act / [2] Articles 11(3), 12(1), 19, 136(1), and 137 subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 87Do2604 delivered on January 17, 1989 (Gong1989, 322) Supreme Court Order 94Ma2217 delivered on October 2, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3716)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009No3782 Decided April 7, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

Before determining the grounds of appeal, we examine it ex officio.

Articles 11(3) and 19 of the Copyright Act lists works of art, architectural works, or photographic works (hereinafter “works of art, etc.”) subject to the protection of “the right of exhibition”. As such, other works than works of art, etc. are not infringed upon by means of display.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of all the charges of this case that: (a) the Defendant, by indicating that the Defendant jointly translated and published the translation of “kniverism theory” with the victim’s Nonindicted Party, was solely translated by the Defendant; (b) displayed on the website of the Korea Counseling & T Research Institute, thereby infringing the victim’s property rights by displaying the link on the website of the Island; and (c) at the same time,

However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, since the translation of the “prestigious theory” written by the victim and the defendant constitutes a literary work, the author’s property right is not infringed by the method of exhibition. Thus, even if the defendant posted it on the Internet homepage of the Korea Institute of Counseling and Line Institute without the victim’s permission, it does not constitute an infringement of author’s property right by the method of exhibition. In addition, according to the records, the defendant, as well as the aforementioned translation of the “prestigious theory,” as well as the aforementioned translation of the “prestigious theory,” and the indication of the author, station, publishing year, page, price, price, etc. of the book, and the mere publication of the photo of the book on the Internet homepage of the Korea Institute of Counseling and Line Institute and the fact that the defendant posted it on the book publication site linked to the above translation, not the above translation work, and posted it on the open website by the defendant as a translation of the original copyrighted work, it cannot be deemed as an act of disclosing the work by indicating the person other than the author.

Nevertheless, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted all of the charges of this case on the ground that the translation of “the knives theory”, which is a literary work, may infringe on the author’s property right by means of exhibition, and that the Defendant’s act of indicating the original literary work as a sole translation and posting it on the open website constitutes an act of publication by indicating a person other than the author as an author and thus, it constitutes an act of publication. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the relevant legal provisions

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)