A. In the case of applied art works with strong commerciality, whether a person who has not actually produced such works under a contract between the parties can be deemed the author (negative);

(b) The case holding that if an implied consent was given by the producer of the design, which is a work, to the effect that he would not object to the alteration of the design on the part of the ordering person by refusing to perform the duty of correction on the design, it does not constitute an infringement on the right of integrity under Article 13 (1) of the Copyright Act even though the ordering person has partially modified the design and used the modified design for corporate purposes;

A. Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Copyright Act provides that the creator of a work shall be the author of the work (Article 2 subparag. 2); the copyright shall take place from the time of the author’s work; the author’s moral right shall not require implementation of any procedure or form (Article 10(2)); and the author’s moral right shall be a non-transferable right (Article 14(1)); and the above provision is a mandatory provision that cannot be modified by an agreement between the parties. If a work is of strong commercial nature and needs to be modified in accordance with the situation according to the client’s intent, property value is important; while the author’s personality may be relatively relatively relatively relatively relatively relatively less. However, this work is not different from the case of a pure art work in which the producer’s personality is expressed; the purport of the above provision is also to recognize author’s moral right only to the creator of the work; thus, commercial nature is strong. Therefore, even if the author’s work is not actually produced under a contract between the parties.

B. The case holding that if an implied consent was given by the producer of the design, which is a copyrighted work, to the effect that he would not object to the alteration of the design on the part of the client by refusing to perform the duty of correction on the design, it does not constitute an infringement on the right of integrity under Article 13 (1) of the Copyright Act even though the client has partially modified the design and used the modified design for corporate purposes.

(a) Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Copyright Act, Articles 10 (2) and 14 (1) (b) of the same Act;

Supreme Court Order 92Ma677 Dated December 24, 1992

Applicant (Respondent) Attorney Cho Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Hotel Pream Co., Ltd., Ltd., Pacific Law Office, Attorneys Kim In-con et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Ka98 delivered on June 26, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the petitioner.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal.

The Copyright Act provides that a person who created a work shall be the author of the work (Article 2 subparag. 2); the copyright shall take place from the time of the work’s writing; the author’s moral right shall not require the implementation of any procedure or form (Article 10(2)); and the author’s moral right shall be an exclusive right which cannot be transferred (Article 14(1)); and the above provision is a compulsory provision which cannot be modified by an agreement between the parties. Although the author’s moral right is a compulsory provision which cannot be changed by agreement between the parties. Although the author’s property value is important in the event that the applicant’s commercial nature is strong and it is highly necessary to be changed to the situation according to the client’s intent, while the author’s moral value is relatively relatively relatively relatively relatively relatively less, it is not different from the case of a pure art work. In addition, the purport of the above provision of the Act and the provision of Article 14(1) shall not be interpreted as an exception to the production of a work under the agreement between the parties concerned.

Even based on the facts established by the court below, the basic design and response purpose of thephomatic design, which is the symbol design of the ○○○○○○○○○○○, produced by the applicant, can be seen as not only the selection of its materials, but also the discretion of the applicant, artistic sense, and technology in the production. Therefore, the author of thephomatic design is the applicant who is the producer. Therefore, in light of the characteristics of character and the characteristics of the character and the contents of the contract between the parties, the respondent, who is the orderer, acquired the copyright itself, including the author's moral rights, on the original basis, and there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the attribution of the copyright, and there is a reason to discuss this point.

2. However, according to the facts and records established by the court below, it is recognized that the respondent's basic design and response purpose of the provisional disposition of this case currently being used by non-applicant's non-applicant is very similar to the basic design of ideas, overall form and shape, and image side mentioned in the Do, so the Respondent's basic design and response purpose have not been partially modified and has not been modified. On the other hand, if the applicant is requested to produce the symbol design of ○○○○○○, Inc. and the applicant do not request the Respondent to modify the above design for the purpose of production and production of the above symbol, the Respondent's basic design and response purpose have been modified, and the Respondent's right has not been modified, even if the Respondent's basic design and response purpose have been modified, the Respondent's right to use the design as the Respondent's non-applicant's basic design and the Respondent's right to use the design for the same reason as the Respondent's original purpose and the Respondent's right to use the design for the same reason.

3. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the attribution of copyright, but the applicant's petition of this case is eventually without merit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the right of integrity under the Copyright Act has been infringed.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.