1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim changed at the trial court, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in the part concerning “1. Facts recognized” among the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. However, the part concerning “an independent party intervenor” or “an intervenor” among the grounds for the judgment of the first instance is entirely regarded as “Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency,” and the part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition of the obligation to return unjust enrichment 1) The defendant, without any legal ground, shall be deemed to have suffered profit by using each of the above videos that the plaintiff acquired from the copyright holders of the video works Nos. 1 and 2, and thereby caused damage equivalent to the plaintiff's profit. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the benefit to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion is merely a contract to permit the use of the distribution contract of this case and the agreement of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff acquired the author's property right according to the agreement. The plaintiff is granted only the obligatory right to exclusively use the video works No. 1 and 2, and the plaintiff cannot claim against the defendant for return of unjust enrichment due to the use of the video works No. 1 and 2

However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to interpret that the Plaintiff acquired the “distribution right”, a right including an author’s property right, such as performance right, reproduction right, and distribution right, from the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency, which is the copyright holder of video works No. 1 and No. 2, and the high gender group, by concluding an agreement with the instant distribution contract.

Therefore, if a third party uses a video product without permission, the Plaintiff would be deprived of the opportunity to exercise the right to distribute to the third party by allowing the use of the video product. Therefore, the use of the video product without permission is caused.