1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasons why the court should explain about this case, such as the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance, are the same as the reasons of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the judgment of the second instance as to the plaintiff's assertion emphasized in the trial of the first instance. Thus, it is citing it as it is by

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff is to determine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff. Although each of the buildings of this case is a “slider house” which is completed after manufacturing inside the house, such as pipes, distribution lines, toilets, and furniture, it is a functional work because the Plaintiff’s creative identity is revealed in the layout, color, and the method of connecting each of the buildings, unlike the general container stuff building, and unlike each of the buildings of this case, the act of photographing photographs of each of the buildings of this case and posting them on the Defendant’s website is an infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright to each of the buildings of this case.

The instant special agreement prohibits the Defendant from using the photographs of each of the instant buildings, and the Defendant’s act of posting the pictures of each of the instant buildings on the Defendant’s website by eliminating UNIBX, the Plaintiff’s brand name.

Judgment

According to Gap evidence No. 23, each of the buildings of this case designed by the plaintiff may be deemed to have shown the plaintiff's creative identity in terms of the size and shape of the container, the external color of container, and two or more containers, such as general residential facilities, resting space, forest fire watchers, and fences manufactured by prefabricated using standardized containers. However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by considering Gap evidence No. 24, Eul evidence No. 24, and Eul evidence No. 4 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the mere fact of the above recognition alone is that the defendant posted the photographs of each of the buildings of this case on its website.