The case holding that in case where Gap et al. claimed damages against Eul et al. on the ground of infringement of author's property rights on Eul et al., on the ground that Eul et al., who was working as the Cheongdae-dae-dae-dae-dae et al., sought compensation for damages on the ground of infringement of author's property rights on Eul et al., the case held that Eul et al. and Eul et al. were intentional or negligent in infringing Eul et al.'s copyright on Eul et al., who had worked as the press organization at the time of the meeting, made a book of Eul et al. as the subject of the above gathering; Gap et al. received the above photograph from Eul-dae-dae-dae's website, "2018 Inter-Korean ordinary conference" website, etc., and stored it in the above book without Gap et al.'s consent or consent.

A et al., who had worked as the Cheongdae-dong Team, posted a photograph by gathering “The First South and North Korean summit”, and Nonparty C et al., who had worked as a press organization at the time of the conference, set up a book and distributed and sold it. A et al., upon receiving the above pictures downloaded on the B B B B’s website, “2018 Inter-Korean summit” website, etc., and then placing them on the said book without Gap et al.’s consent or consent, stating that “The photograph was used for the rating of free use of public works within the Cheongdae-dong website,” and that “A et al. claimed damages against B et al. on the ground of infringement of author’s property right.”

The case holding that since Gap et al. are copyright holders, and the above photographs do not hold all the author's property rights in accordance with the work or contract made by public institutions such as Cheongdae et al., they do not correspond to four types of public forum (KGL and Korea Op Government Holdings) established by the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism pursuant to Article 1-3 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Copyright Act, since they are "public works that can be freely used", Byung has engaged in publishing business for about 26 years at the time of planning the above books, and Eul has been working as press organizations or reporters, and it seems that Eul has been aware of copyright to the press organizations or reporters about the photographs which were located earlier, among the Cheongdaedae-dae website, it is the case that even if there was an intentional or negligent indication of the above third party's copyright information, it can be restricted in the case of information with a third party's copyright."

Articles 24-2(2) and 125 of the Copyright Act; Article 1-3(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Copyright Act

Congratory Question Co., Ltd. and 11 others (Attorneys Doh-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Law Firm aiming at Law, Attorneys Park Jong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

February 5, 2021

1. The defendants jointly pay 2,150,000 won to the plaintiff 12,250,000 won to the plaintiff 1,250,000 won to the plaintiff 1,40,000 won to the plaintiff 8, 1,400,000 won to the plaintiff 9, 1,100,000 won to the plaintiff 10,100,000 won to the plaintiff 10,000 won to the plaintiff 10,400,000 won to the world newsletter of the plaintiff 11,850,000 won to the plaintiff 12, and 950,00 won to the plaintiff 1,850,000 won to the plaintiff 12,950,00 won to the Korean Economic Newspapers, and 80,000 won to the plaintiff 1,70,000 won to the plaintiff 1,250,205.

2. The plaintiffs' respective remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs' tendency newspaper company, citizen daily newspaper company, plaintiff 9, Dong Daily company, plaintiff 10, global daily newspaper company, plaintiff 11, plaintiff 12, central daily newspaper company, Korean economic newspaper and the defendants is 65%, the remainder of the plaintiffs, the part arising between the plaintiffs 8 and the defendants is 55%, the defendants' remainder, the part arising between the plaintiff 8 and the defendants, the remaining part of the defendants, the plaintiff Han Han Han Daily newspaper and the defendants are 60%, and the defendants' remainder.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants jointly do not intend to pay 6,500,000 won to the plaintiff 12,500,000 won to the plaintiff 3,500,000 won to the plaintiff 8, 1,500,000 won to the plaintiff 9, 3,000,0000 won to the plaintiff 10, 3,0000 won to the plaintiff 3,000,0000 won to the plaintiff 10, 4,000,000 won to the plaintiff 11, and 5,50,000,000 won to the plaintiff 12, and 2,50,000,000 won to the Korean Economic Newspapers, and 5,00,000,000 won to the plaintiff 2,5,000,000 won to the plaintiff 12, 200,000 won to the plaintiff 10,25,008.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 27, 2018, Plaintiff 8, Plaintiff 9, Plaintiff 10, Plaintiff 11, and Plaintiff 12 were working as the Cheong Dae Dae Dae Dae-dong Team (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiff Company”)’s reporters belonging to the Plaintiff Company’s tendency newspapers, the national daily newspaper company, Dong Il-dong company, the world newsletter, the central company, the Korea Economic Newspapers, and the Korea Culture Newspapers and the Korea Culture Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the foregoing companies”), and Plaintiff 8, Plaintiff 9, Plaintiff 10, Plaintiff 11, and Plaintiff 12 were working as the Cheong Dae-dong Senior News Group. On the first round of the South and North Korea (hereinafter referred to as “the first round”) held on April 27, 2018, they participated in the joint news gathering in the name of “the Korea Joint Gang-dong Team.”

B. Defendant 1 is the representative director and issuer of Defendant NexEX Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”). Defendant Company is a corporation established on March 30, 1992 for the main purpose of publishing, manufacturing, and printing business (hereinafter “Defendant Company and Defendant 1”), and Defendant 2 entered into a personal tax contract, etc. with Defendant Company around July 2018 and entered into a personal tax contract, etc. with Defendant Company, and around July 2018, Defendant 2018, Defendant 1 was engaged in the instant book (hereinafter “instant book”). At the time of the first session, Defendant Company is working as a political journal belonging to New News Company, Inc., a media company at the time of the first session, and is currently working as a reporter belonging to the Yonhap News.

C. The book of this case published around July 25, 2018 by Defendant Company planning around June 2018 and by requesting Defendant 2 to Defendant 2, was composed of “1 – the transfer of the first South-North Korean summit on April 27, 2018, Part II – the first South-North Korean summit on April 27, - Part III, and the second North-North Korean summit on April 27, - Part IV – the second North-North Korean summit on May 26, - the second North Korean summit on May 26, - the main contents of the photographs covered by each case according to the order of time and the brief description of Defendant 2 on each case, as shown in the attached Table, are included in the entire photograph of this case (hereinafter “68”).

D. Defendant 2 produced the instant book by stating, “The Defendant 2 arbitrarily downloaded the instant pictures on the Cheongdae website (www.go.go.r., hereinafter “W.1 website”) or on the Inter-Korean ordinary conference site (www.km.K.; hereinafter “2 site”) of 2018, and without obtaining the Plaintiffs’ consent or consent, recorded them in the instant book without obtaining the Plaintiffs’ consent or consent, and distributed and sold at the end of Cheongdae-ro, by stating, “The pictures recorded in this book were used as a photograph of free use of public works within the Cheongdae-ro website pursuant to Article 24-2 (Free Use of Public Works) of the Copyright Act.”

E. Among the instant photographs, the photographs of “(126, 211, 217, 162, 109, 110, 112, 114, 225, 174, and 117” (hereinafter “type 1 photographs of this case”) among the instant pictures are posted on the first website. Among them, the photographs of “109, 110, 112, and 114,” among the instant pictures, are posted only on the first website, and the photographs of “10, 112, and 114, other than the blue and luosic photographs of this case among the type 1 photographs of this case are posted on the second website.” Among the instant pictures, the pictures of this case, other than the instant type 1 photographs, are posted only on the second website.

F. The Defendant Company distributed news report materials (No. 4) stating that “The pictures recorded in this book are used as a class photograph of “The Free Use of Public Works” and considered as a type 1 photograph of “The Standard for Indication of Free Use of Public Works (Public Mono, KOGL). Other pictures, including signs pictures, including photographs, were taken by NOGL,

G. At the lower end of the 2-site website, Defendant 2 indicated the type No. 4 of the public forum, and there was a sign on the “fluorical joint coverage group” or “joint coverage group” at the lower end of the photographs other than Cheongdae photographs among the instant pictures that Defendant 2 received by the said website.

H. Meanwhile, on the first website on which the instant type 1 pictures were published, public discount No. 1 was marked, among the first website, the “public discount” was linked to the copyright policy page, and the terms and conditions for the use of the public discount No. 1 published in the public hall, stating, “user may freely use the public work without compensation and use it without compensation if complying with the following conditions, regardless of whether it is commercial use or not,” and the conditions for the presentation are as follows.

1. The duty to indicate the source of a tag contained in the main text 1. The user must indicate the source or copyright holder as follows if he/she uses a public work. The copyrighted work is “○○○ (Name of Agency)” prepared from “○○○○ (Name of Agency)” to “○○○○” and opened in the form of “○○○○○○ (Name of Agency),” and the copyrighted work may be generated free of charge from “○○○ (Name of Agency) and ○○ (website address)” and the copyrighted work is subject to limited use of the copyrighted work.” - The omitted information included in the public work, the use of which is restricted pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, even if it is included in the public work. - Information that is subject to other rights such as trademark rights, design rights, patent rights, etc., or information that is subject to limited use pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes; 5. The public institution is exempt from the responsibility of the public institution; 1. The public institution does not guarantee the accuracy or continuous provision of the copyrighted work.

(i) In common at the bottom of the instant pictures, including the instant type 1 photographs posted on the 1 and 2 website, the phrase “2018 South and North Korean summit peace and new start.”

(j) Upon becoming aware of the publication of the instant book, the Plaintiffs informed Defendant 2 of the fact that the Plaintiffs’ copyright to the instant pictures was infringed. On August 20, 2018 and September 6, 2018, the Plaintiffs requested the Defendant Company to suspend the sale of the instant book and to take measures to recover the entire amount of the Plaintiff’s copyright infringement upon the Defendant Company’s content certification.

(k) Accordingly, the Defendant Company requested the Plaintiffs to negotiate on the royalty, etc. of the instant pictures, and stated that “In the event of a negotiation, it would immediately suspend the sale of the instant pictures and compensate for damages,” and Defendant 2 also transferred the Defendant Company’s request to Nonparty 1, who is the reporter belonging to the Mono Newspapers Co., Ltd., to Nonparty 1, who wishes to reach an agreement on the part of the Defendant Company. If the Defendant Company additionally printed the instant books, it transferred the fact that he requested the Defendant Company to the effect that he would be omitted from the author of the instant book.

(l) On September 8, 2018, Defendant Company requested that the instant book be sold suspended and returned to Dandong Co., Ltd., and on October 15, 2018, Dandong Co., Ltd. requested that the instant book be returned to the “Sol branch representative” until October 31, 2018.

(m) Of 3,050 copies printed on the first page, 1,607 copies were first released from the first page, and 293 copies were sold, 1,314 copies were returned, and 86 copies were discarded, and 3 copies were discarded, and 2,668 copies were in inventory.

Ha. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs, first of all, attempted to consult with the Defendant Company and continued to sell the pertinent book via online and offline book stores, requested the Plaintiff to suspend the sales of the book at issue on September 20, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 14 (including the number with each number), Eul evidence 1, 2, 9 through 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The Defendants’ act of producing, distributing, and selling the instant books without permission constitutes an unlawful act infringing the Plaintiffs’ property rights by intention. Since the amount which the Plaintiffs may receive when they permitted or sold to a third party the use of the instant pictures is at least 50,000 won per photograph, the amount of damages is identical to that indicated in the property damage column in the attached Table. The Defendants, through the infringement of the copyright of this case, caused mental distress to the Plaintiffs by disregarding their mental efforts, etc., which the Plaintiffs used to take the instant pictures, and thereby, infringed the Plaintiffs’ right to indicate their names and the right to maintain identity, and thus, they are obliged to pay 1 million won a solatium.

2) The defendants' assertion

A) Disputes over copyright holders

The copyright holder of the instant pictures is a Cheongdae Phographer, not the plaintiffs.

B) Denial of intention or negligence

The instant pictures were posted on the first website and the second website managed by the Blux, but did not separately indicate a copyright owner. At the time of planning to publish the instant books, the Cheonglux website indicated the instant pictures as “Type 1 of public forum.” On May 31, 2018, Nonparty 2 editor of the Defendant Company asked the person in charge of Nonparty 2’s office for New Media Secretary, including the first website’s photograph, whether the instant pictures posted on the second website would be used for publishing the books, and the Cheonglux asked Division asked the person in charge of the office for New Media Secretary of the Defendant Company, as well as the first website, whether the instant pictures posted on the second website would be used for publishing the books.” As a result of re-verification of the indication of sources, the Cheonglux was informed that “No problem exists in publishing them as books.”

In addition, only the term "joint coverage group" was written by each of the instant pictures, but it was not indicated by individual reporters or media companies.

Therefore, the defendants could not know that the pictures of this case were separate copyright holders rather than public agencies, and they trust a definite answer and the indication of official website with Cheongdae-dae-dae-man. Therefore, it is difficult to see that the plaintiffs' act of infringing on the copyright of the pictures of this case was committed intentionally or by negligence.

C) Wrongful calculation of damages

The instant book issued by the Defendant Company is 3,050 copies, and among which the books actually sold are 293 copies, the net sales amount is 3,513,070 won (i.e., 293 x 21,800 won/1). A total production cost is 10,350,591 won (i.e., design cost of 2,200,000 + production cost of 8,150,591). Accordingly, the Defendant Company has no profit accrued from manufacturing and selling the instant book.

Article 125(2) of the Copyright Act provides that “The amount equivalent to the amount which can be ordinarily received by the exercise of the right” is the amount of damages. However, this is intended to estimate the amount in a case where a transaction normally accrues and gains profits, and it is difficult to deem that it falls under the case where the sale was not conducted properly as in the

Considering the “amount equivalent to the amount which can be ordinarily received by the exercise of the right” as the amount of damages under Article 125(2) of the Family Copyright Act, the amount equivalent to 1.52% of the personal tax rate of 8% on the photographs recorded in the book of this case (=8% of the personal tax rate of 8% on the photographs recorded in the book of this case) shall be calculated as the amount of damages.

3) Organization of issues

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are copyright holders of this case’s pictures, which constitute copyrighted works and the Defendants recorded this case’s pictures in the instant book, and thus, there is no dispute as to the fact that they infringed on the copyright of this case’s pictures, and according to the facts recognized as above, this is recognized. However, the Defendants dispute over whether the copyright holders of this case’s pictures were the Cheongmo-guer, not the Plaintiffs, and whether they were intentional or negligent in copyright infringement or whether they were negligent in copyright infringement or not

B. The copyright holder of the instant pictures

The evidence No. 14 alone is not sufficient to see that there exists a separate legal entity or non-legal entity body, Cheongdae-gu, a motion picture screener. According to the above facts of recognition, this case's pictures are recorded as shown in the attached Table by Plaintiffs 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 as well as reporters of the Plaintiff's company as indicated in the attached Table, and Plaintiffs 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 as indicated in the attached Table. Thus, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiffs have copyright for each of the pictures described in the attached page.

C. Intentional or negligence of the Defendants

(i) public interest;

A) Article 24-2(2) of the Copyright Act provides that “The State may establish and implement a policy to activate the use of works by public institutions pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Management of Public Institutions, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, in order to activate the use of works owned in whole by authors’ property rights in accordance with works or contracts prepared and published in the course of their duties.” Article 1-3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Copyright Act provides that measures to encourage the use of works by public institutions pursuant to Article 24-2(2) of the Copyright Act shall include: (i) means to expand public works freely available (Article 24-2(2) of the Copyright Act; (ii) matters concerning the promotion of the use of public works (Article 2); (iii) matters concerning the promotion of the use of public works (Article 3); (iv) matters concerning education, training and publicity of free use of public works (Article 4); (v) matters concerning the application of labelling standards set by the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism (Article 5); (vi) matters related to the improvement of the public institution’s free use (Article 7).

B) Pursuant to Article 1-3(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Copyright Act, the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism: (a) prepared a public forum (KOGL and Korea Open General Loan in the Republic of Korea); and (b) divided into four types; (c) among them, where users can freely use public works, regardless of commercial use, and make secondary works, etc.; and (d) users may freely use public works and freely use secondary works for commercial purposes; but (e) where the use for commercial purposes is prohibited, the type (iii) may freely use public works regardless of commercial use, but the content of public works may not be modified or modified without compensation; (e) where users may freely use them for commercial purposes; (g) where the content of public works can be modified or modified for commercial purposes, the type (iv) is all the basic elements of the aforementioned four types, where the user is prohibited from using them for commercial purposes, but the type (v) may freely use them for public works for commercial purposes, but (v) the type (iv) is all the basic elements of labeling.

2) The investigative agency conducted a non-prosecution disposition on the grounds that there was no intentional copyright infringement against the Defendants. On November 8, 2019, the Seoul High Court rejected the Plaintiffs’ application for adjudication on the grounds that there was no dispute between the parties, and the first-class photographs of this case were indicated on the first-class website. However, prior to the publication of the instant book, it was found that the Defendant Company asked the person in charge of the office of the secretary general of New Media affairs of Cheongdae-dae-dae, who was posted on the first and second-class website, about whether the pictures of the 2018 South-North Korean summits posted on the first and second-class website were used for publishing the books, and accordingly, there is no problem of publishing them as books from the person in charge of Cheongdae-dae-dae in charge of Cheong-dae in relation to the contents and the sign or simple item (c), or as to whether the Defendant was informed that the source was revealed on the website or the website, there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

However, Defendant Company: (a) was a person who, considering the nature of the event that pictures of 2018 South and North Korea were exposed to the fact that they were allowed to participate in the event; (b) the basic facts acknowledged earlier and circumstances that can be seen therefrom; (c) the pictures of this case, such as the Plaintiff, copyright holders, and public institutions, do not constitute four types of pictures of this case; (b) the pictures of this case, other than the pictures of this case, do not appear to fall under the category 1; (c) the Defendant Company was engaged in the publishing business for about 26 years as at the time of planning the production of the instant pictures; and (d) it seems reasonable to view that the aforementioned pictures of this case, other than the pictures of this case, were used by the media organizations or reporters, with the indication of “No. 1 of this case’s pictures of this case’s motion pictures,” and (d) the remaining pictures or motion pictures of this case’s motion pictures, other than those of the instant motion pictures and motion pictures of this case’s motion pictures, were not included in the new type of pictures or motion pictures.

D. Scope of damages

(i) Property damage;

(5) The following facts, i.e., Defendant Company purchased 150,00 won of the cover of the instant images from July 5, 2018, ② From July 25, 2017, the use of newspapers and photographs by the companies and individuals from July 25, 2017. Where the companies intend to use photographs by 10,00 won or more, 50,000 won per page, 10 to 20,000 won per page, 1 to 30,000 won per page, 1 to 50,000 won per page, 1 to 50,000 won per page, 1 to 30,000 won per page, 1 to 5,000,000 won per page, 1 to 1 to 5,000,000 won per page, and 1 to 5,000,000 won or less per photograph of the news media, and 1 to 5,000,00,000 photograph per photograph of the news.

2) Consolation money

A) According to the above facts, it is recognized that the defendants infringed the plaintiffs' right to indicate their names on the pictures of this case, and if the author's moral rights were infringed, the copyright holder shall be deemed to have suffered mental suffering which would be prejudicial to his honor and emotions unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu12824, Oct. 24, 1989). Thus, the defendants are jointly obligated to jointly compensate for mental suffering suffered by the plaintiffs in money, and the amount of consolation money shall be determined as KRW 500,000, respectively, by taking into account the facts as examined above and all the circumstances.

B) Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants infringed their respective rights to maintain identity on the pictures of this case, and in general, mental suffering has been recovered by compensation for property damage in case of infringement of author's property rights. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs suffered from infringement of author's property rights on the pictures of this case only compensation for property damage recognized in paragraph (1) above, and there is no ground to prove that the Plaintiffs suffered from irrecoverable mental suffering. Thus, this part of the Plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3) Sub-committee

(1) The Defendants jointly do so: ① KRW 2,150,00 (property damages + KRW 150,00 + KRW 11 + 50,000) ② Plaintiff’s national daily damages + KRW 50,00 (property damages + 50,000 + KRW 50 + 50,000), ③ Plaintiff 8’s property damages + 150,000 KRW 150 + 10,000 + 50,000 (property damages + 50,000 KRW 150,000) x 10,000 won x 50,000 won (property damages) 】 1,400,000 won (property damages + 150,000 won x 6,000 won (property damages + 50,000 won) x 1,005 won (property damages) x 05,005 won (property damages)

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim of the plaintiffs is justified within the scope of each above recognition, and the remaining claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Separate List] Omitted

Judges Lee - Authority