{"id":1944,"date":"2026-08-29T03:52:06","date_gmt":"2026-08-29T03:52:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/"},"modified":"2026-08-29T03:54:10","modified_gmt":"2026-08-29T03:54:10","slug":"joint-work-infringement-south-korea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/","title":{"rendered":"Using a Joint Work Without Consent in South Korea \u2014 No Crime, but Damages Nonetheless"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><!--  -->\n\n\n\n<!--  --><\/p>\n<p><!-- ATLAS_SEO_BLOCK_START --><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/#article\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/#webpage\"},\"headline\":\"Using a Joint Work Without Consent in South Korea: No Crime, but Damages Nonetheless\",\"description\":\"Under South Korean law, using a joint work without the consent of the other co-author is not a criminal copyright offense, but the civil courts treat it as infringement. Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 awarded damages, and the Supreme Court of Korea settled the civil rule in January 2026. This article compares the position with Korean patent, utility model, design, and trademark law.\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-29T09:00:00+09:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-29T09:00:00+09:00\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"author\":{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/soyoung-park\/#person\",\"name\":\"Soyoung Park\",\"alternateName\":\"\ubc15\uc18c\uc601\",\"jobTitle\":\"Representative Attorney\",\"worksFor\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/#legalservice\"}},\"publisher\":{\"@type\":\"LegalService\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/#legalservice\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\"},\"about\":[\"Joint works under the Korean Copyright Act\",\"Article 48(1) of the Korean Copyright Act\",\"Suwon High Court 2025Na13164\",\"Supreme Court of Korea 2012Do16066\",\"Article 99(3) of the Korean Patent Act\",\"Co-ownership of intellectual property in South Korea\"]}<\/script><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@type\":\"FAQPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/#faqpage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"mainEntity\":[{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Can a work be a joint work under Korean law even if the two people never wrote together?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Yes. Under South Korean law the required intent to create jointly is not an intent to become legal co-authors, but an intent to produce a single work in which each contribution cannot be separately exploited (Supreme Court of Korea 2012Do16066). In Suwon High Court 2025Na13164, a lecturer spoke and a follower turned the material into verse; the court still found a joint work because the lecturer accepted the creative reworking and registered the copyright in his own name.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Is using a joint work without the other co-author's consent a crime in South Korea?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"No, not as a copyright offense. The Supreme Court of Korea held that Article 48(1) of the Korean Copyright Act governs only how co-authors exercise their rights among themselves, so using the work without consent merely violates that method of exercise and does not amount to infringement of the other co-author's economic rights (Supreme Court of Korea 2012Do16066). That ruling addressed the elements of a criminal offense.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"If it is not a crime, does that mean there is no civil liability either?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"No. Korean lower courts hold that the criminal ruling addressed a separately defined criminal offense and therefore does not automatically govern civil liability. The civil rule was set out in Seoul Central District Court 2019Gahap579315, adopted by Seoul High Court 2023Na2056379, and became final when the Supreme Court of Korea dismissed the appeal in 2025Da217641 on January 8, 2026.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Why may co-owners of a Korean patent work the invention alone when co-authors may not?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Because the statutes differ. Article 99(3) of the Korean Patent Act allows each co-owner to work the patented invention without the other co-owners' consent unless otherwise agreed by contract. Article 96(3) of the Korean Design Protection Act is the same, and Article 28 of the Korean Utility Model Act applies Article 99 of the Patent Act. The Korean Copyright Act contains no such provision and instead requires unanimous agreement under Article 48(1).\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Does registering a joint work in one co-author's sole name infringe by itself?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Registration alone is generally not infringement. Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 held that copyright registration is not an act of indicating a name on the original, a copy, or the medium of publication, so it does not raise a right of attribution issue, and it is neither reproduction nor distribution. What the court found infringing was publishing, reproducing, and distributing the book with only one person named as author.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"Why were the damages only KRW 1.5 million?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Because the respective contributions were never proven. Article 48(2) of the Korean Copyright Act presumes equal shares where the degree of each contribution is unclear. In Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 no contribution evidence was produced, and because 300 copies had been given away for free there was no way to calculate profit, so the court set damages at KRW 500,000 for the economic rights under Article 126 and KRW 1,000,000 as solatium for the right of attribution.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"What if the other co-author simply refuses to agree?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"The statute addresses this. The second sentences of Article 48(1) and Article 15(1) of the Korean Copyright Act provide that no rights holder may obstruct agreement or withhold consent in bad faith. Korean courts read this flexibly, weighing the effort made to reach agreement, whether reasonable compensation was offered, and the reasons for refusal. Article 129 also lets each co-author seek an injunction and damages for their own share without the others' consent.\"}},{\"@type\":\"Question\",\"name\":\"What should a foreign company operating in the Incheon Free Economic Zone do about this?\",\"acceptedAnswer\":{\"@type\":\"Answer\",\"text\":\"Fix the shares and the consent procedure in writing before creation begins. Companies in Songdo International Business District, Cheongna International City, and Yeongjong International City frequently commission content, software, and design from Korean partners. Because Korean copyright law requires unanimous agreement while Korean patent and design law allow independent working, the same collaboration can produce opposite outcomes depending on which right protects the output.\"}}]}<\/script><br \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@type\":[\"LegalService\",\"LocalBusiness\"],\"@id\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/#legalservice\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal\",\"alternateName\":[\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"Atlas Law Firm\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en\/home-en\/\",\"telephone\":\"+82-32-864-8300\",\"email\":\"info@atlaw.kr\",\"priceRange\":\"$$$\",\"address\":{\"@type\":\"PostalAddress\",\"streetAddress\":\"B-2901, 323 Incheon Tower-daero\",\"addressLocality\":\"Yeonsu-gu, Incheon\",\"addressRegion\":\"Incheon Metropolitan City\",\"postalCode\":\"22007\",\"addressCountry\":\"KR\"},\"geo\":{\"@type\":\"GeoCoordinates\",\"latitude\":37.399438,\"longitude\":126.629812},\"openingHoursSpecification\":[{\"@type\":\"OpeningHoursSpecification\",\"dayOfWeek\":[\"Monday\",\"Tuesday\",\"Wednesday\",\"Thursday\",\"Friday\"],\"opens\":\"09:00\",\"closes\":\"18:00\"}],\"areaServed\":[{\"@type\":\"Country\",\"name\":\"South Korea\"},{\"@type\":\"Place\",\"name\":\"Songdo International Business District\"},{\"@type\":\"Place\",\"name\":\"Cheongna International City\"},{\"@type\":\"Place\",\"name\":\"Yeongjong International City\"},{\"@type\":\"Place\",\"name\":\"Incheon\"},{\"@type\":\"Place\",\"name\":\"Seoul Metropolitan Area\"},{\"@type\":\"Place\",\"name\":\"Incheon Free Economic Zone (IFEZ)\"}],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Copyright Law in South Korea\",\"Joint Works and Co-Authorship under Korean Copyright Law\",\"Co-Ownership of Patents in South Korea\",\"Trademark Co-Ownership in South Korea\",\"Intellectual Property Disputes in South Korea\",\"Corporate Disputes in South Korea\",\"Incheon Free Economic Zone (IFEZ) Legal Services in South Korea\"],\"serviceType\":[\"Intellectual Property Dispute Resolution\",\"Copyright Litigation\",\"Corporate Dispute Resolution\",\"Contract Drafting and Review\",\"Foreign Direct Investment Legal Services\"]}<\/script><br \/>\n<!-- ATLAS_SEO_BLOCK_END --><\/p>\n<style>@import url('https:\/\/cdn.jsdelivr.net\/gh\/orioncactus\/pretendard@v1.3.9\/dist\/web\/static\/pretendard.css'); \/* \u2500\u2500 Kadence \ud14c\ub9c8 \ucee8\ud150\uce20 \ud3ed override \u2500\u2500 *\/ :root { --global-content-narrow-width: 1290px !important; } .entry-content-wrap { max-width: 1290px !important; } *, *::before, *::after { box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0; padding: 0; } :root { --navy: #0a2540; --navy2: #1a3353; --wine: #722f37; --text: #1a1f36; --muted: #697386; --rule: #e3e8ee; } body { font-family: 'Pretendard', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Apple SD Gothic Neo', sans-serif; background: #fff; color: var(--text); font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.82; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; } \/* \u2500\u2500 \ud788\uc5b4\ub85c \u2500\u2500 *\/ .hero { max-width: 1000px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 72px 48px 48px; text-align: center; } .category-tag { font-size: 11px; font-weight: 700; letter-spacing: 1.5px; text-transform: uppercase; color: var(--wine); display: block; margin-bottom: 20px; } .hero h1 { font-size: 44px; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1.22; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 28px; word-break: keep-all; } \/* \ud788\uc5b4\ub85c \uc81c\ubaa9 \u2014 h1 \ub300\uc2e0 \uc0ac\uc6a9 (\ud14c\ub9c8 \uc790\ub3d9 h1\uacfc \uc911\ubcf5 \ubc29\uc9c0) *\/ .hero-title { font-size: 44px; font-weight: 700; line-height: 1.22; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 28px; word-break: keep-all; } .hero-meta { display: flex; align-items: center; justify-content: center; gap: 12px; padding-bottom: 40px; border-bottom: 1px solid var(--rule); } .hero-info { font-size: 13.5px; color: var(--text); line-height: 1.4; } .hero-info strong { color: var(--text); font-weight: 500; } \/* \u2500\u2500 \uc989\uc2dc \ub2f5\ubcc0 \ubc15\uc2a4 \u2500\u2500 *\/ .direct-answer { background: #f6f9fc; border-left: 4px solid var(--navy); border-radius: 0; padding: 20px 24px; margin: 32px 0 40px; font-size: 17px; line-height: 1.75; color: var(--text); } \/* \u2500\u2500 \ubcf8\ubb38 \u2500\u2500 *\/ .content { max-width: 1000px; margin: 0 auto; padding: 52px 48px 100px; } \/* \ubaa9\ucc28 *\/ .toc-nav { margin-bottom: 60px; border: 1px solid #d0d5dd; border-radius: 6px; padding: 28px 32px; } .toc-label { font-size: 20px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 14px; } .toc-nav ol { list-style: none; padding-left: 0; } .toc-nav ol li { display: flex; gap: 14px; align-items: baseline; padding: 6px 0; font-size: 17px; } .toc-nav ol li::before { content: none; } .toc-nav ol li a { color: var(--text); text-decoration: none; font-weight: 400; } .toc-nav ol li a:hover { color: var(--wine); } \/* \ub9ac\ub4dc\u00b7\uc694\uc57d\u00b7\ucee8\ud14d\uc2a4\ud2b8 \ud14d\uc2a4\ud2b8 *\/ .lead-text { font-size: 20px; font-weight: 400; color: var(--text); line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 24px; } .summary-text { font-size: 18px; color: var(--text); line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 20px; } .context-text { font-size: 17px; color: var(--text); line-height: 1.8; margin-bottom: 52px; } \/* \u2500\u2500 \uc81c\ubaa9 \u2500\u2500 *\/ h2 { font-size: 30px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--wine); margin: 68px 0 16px; word-break: keep-all; } h3 { font-size: 17px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--wine); margin: 38px 0 10px; } p { font-size: 18px; color: var(--text); line-height: 1.82; margin-bottom: 18px; } \/* \ud45c *\/ table { width: 100%; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 24px 0; font-size: 14px; } thead tr { background: #fff; } th { color: var(--navy); font-weight: 600; padding: 11px 16px; text-align: left; font-size: 16px; border-bottom: 2px solid var(--navy); } td { padding: 12px 16px; border-bottom: 1px solid var(--rule); color: var(--text); font-size: 16px; } tbody tr:hover { background: #f6f9fc; } \/* \ubd88\ub9bf \ub9ac\uc2a4\ud2b8 *\/ ul, ol:not(.toc-nav ol) { padding-left: 20px; margin-bottom: 16px; } li { font-size: 18px; line-height: 1.78; margin-bottom: 6px; color: var(--text); } \/* \uacc4\uc0b0 \uacf5\uc2dd *\/ .formula { display: flex; align-items: center; gap: 8px; background: #f6f9fc; border: 1px solid var(--rule); border-radius: 8px; padding: 28px 24px; margin: 32px 0; flex-wrap: wrap; justify-content: center; } .f-item { text-align: center; padding: 12px 18px; background: #fff; border: 1px solid var(--rule); border-radius: 5px; } .f-result { background: #fff; border: 2px solid var(--navy); } .f-num { font-size: 22px; font-weight: 700; color: var(--navy); line-height: 1.2; } .f-result .f-num { color: var(--wine); } .f-label { font-size: 11px; color: var(--text); margin-top: 4px; } .f-op { font-size: 20px; color: var(--text); padding: 0 2px; font-weight: 300; } \/* FAQ *\/ .faq-item { border-top: 1px solid var(--rule); padding: 22px 0; } .faq-item:last-of-type { border-bottom: 1px solid var(--rule); } .faq-q { font-size: 17px; font-weight: 600; color: var(--navy); margin-bottom: 8px !important; } .faq-item p:not(.faq-q) { font-size: 17px; color: var(--text); margin: 0; line-height: 1.75; } \/* \ub9c8\ubb34\ub9ac \ubb38\uc7a5 *\/ p.closing { font-size: 15.5px; color: var(--text); margin: 40px 0 0; padding-top: 32px; border-top: 1px solid var(--rule); } \/* \uc800\uc790 \ubc15\uc2a4 *\/ .author-box { display: flex; align-items: center; gap: 14px; padding-top: 40px; margin-top: 40px; border-top: 1px solid var(--rule); } .author-avatar { width: 56px; height: 56px; border-radius: 50%; object-fit: cover; flex-shrink: 0; align-self: flex-start; } .author-text { flex: 1; } .author-name { font-size: 18px; font-weight: 600; color: var(--navy); } .author-meta { font-size: 13px; color: var(--text); margin-top: 2px; } .author-link { display: inline-block; margin-top: 8px; font-size: 15px; font-weight: 600; color: var(--wine); text-decoration: none; } .author-link:hover { text-decoration: underline; } .author-section-label { font-size: 15px; font-weight: 700; letter-spacing: 1px; text-transform: uppercase; color: var(--muted); margin-bottom: 8px; } .author-detail { font-size: 16px; color: var(--text); line-height: 1.7; margin-bottom: 1px; } @media (max-width: 640px) { body { font-size: 15px; } p { font-size: 15px; } li { font-size: 15px; } .hero { padding: 32px 14px 24px; } .hero h1 { font-size: 22px; } .hero-title { font-size: 22px; } .hero-info { font-size: 12px; } .content { padding: 28px 0 60px; } .toc-nav { margin-left: -14px; margin-right: -14px; border-radius: 0; border-left: none; border-right: none; padding: 12px 4px; margin-bottom: 28px; } .toc-label { font-size: 16px; } .toc-nav ol li { font-size: 14px; padding: 3px 0; } h2 { font-size: 20px; margin: 44px 0 10px; } h3 { font-size: 15px; margin: 24px 0 8px; } .lead-text { font-size: 16px; } .summary-text { font-size: 15px; } .context-text { font-size: 14px; } .formula { flex-direction: column; padding: 16px 12px; } .f-num { font-size: 18px; } th { font-size: 13px; padding: 8px 10px; } td { font-size: 13px; padding: 8px 10px; } .faq-q { font-size: 14px; } .faq-item p:not(.faq-q) { font-size: 14px; } .author-box { display: block; overflow: hidden; } .author-avatar { float: left; width: 36px; height: 36px; margin-right: 10px; border-radius: 50%; } .author-section-label { display: inline; font-size: 11px; letter-spacing: 0; margin: 0 3px 0 0; } .author-name { display: inline; font-size: 14px; } .author-detail { clear: both; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.55; margin-top: 8px; margin-bottom: 1px; } .author-detail ~ .author-detail { clear: none; margin-top: 2px; } .author-link { clear: both; display: block; font-size: 13px; margin-top: 8px; } p.closing { font-size: 14px; } }<\/style>\n<div class=\"hero\">\n  <span class=\"category-tag\">Intellectual Property<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"hero-title\">Using a Joint Work Without Consent in South Korea<br \/>No Crime, but Damages Nonetheless<\/div>\n<div class=\"hero-meta\">\n<div class=\"hero-info\">\n      <strong>Soyoung Park<\/strong> \u00b7 Representative Attorney, Atlas Legal<br \/>\n      Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 &nbsp;\u00b7&nbsp; Supreme Court of Korea 2025Da217641 &nbsp;\u00b7&nbsp; Supreme Court of Korea 2012Do16066\n    <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"content\">\n<div class=\"direct-answer\">\n    <strong>Key answer:<\/strong> Under South Korean law, using a joint work without the other co-author&#8217;s consent is not a criminal copyright offense (Supreme Court of Korea 2012Do16066), but it is civil infringement. Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 awarded KRW 1.5 million in damages, and the same civil rule became final in Supreme Court of Korea 2025Da217641 on January 8, 2026.\n  <\/div>\n<div class=\"toc-nav\">\n<p class=\"toc-label\">Contents<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-1\">1. Who is an author when one person speaks and another writes?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-2\">2. Why did the Supreme Court of Korea say this was not infringement?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-3\">3. So why did the civil courts award damages anyway?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-4\">4. Why may Korean patent co-owners work alone when co-authors may not?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-5\">5. Does sole-name copyright registration infringe by itself?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-6\">6. Why were the damages only KRW 1.5 million?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-7\">7. Are you liable even if you did not know the work was joint?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-8\">8. How far do injunctions reach under South Korean law?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-9\">9. What should foreign companies in the IFEZ do before collaborating?<\/a><\/li>\n<li><a href=\"#sec-faq\">10. Frequently asked questions<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol><\/div>\n<p class=\"lead-text\">In the early 2000s a lecturer in South Korea asked a follower to turn his lecture material into a book. The follower did more than transcribe: he reworked the spoken material into verse, with meter and literary phrasing. More than a decade later he printed 300 copies naming himself as the sole author and gave them away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"summary-text\">The lecturer sued for copyright infringement, seeking KRW 30 million, and lost at first instance. The appellate court reversed in part. It did not, however, accept the lecturer&#8217;s core claim that the work was his alone. The court found both men to be co-authors, and then held that the follower&#8217;s solo publication infringed anyway.<\/p>\n<p class=\"context-text\">That matters because the Supreme Court of Korea had ruled in 2014, on essentially the same structure of facts, that no infringement occurs. Criminal and civil outcomes diverge on identical conduct, and that divergence hardened into settled lower-court practice when the Supreme Court of Korea let the civil rule stand in January 2026. This article explains how that happened and why Korean patent, utility model, design, and trademark law reach the opposite result.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-1\">Who is an author when one person speaks and another writes?<\/h2>\n<p class=\"lead-text\">Both can be. If the writer does more than transcribe and contributes creatively to the form of expression, that person becomes a co-author. Suwon High Court, in its judgment of July 23, 2026 (2025Na13164), found both the lecturer and the writer to be co-authors.<\/p>\n<p>The lecturer argued on two grounds. First, that the writer had merely taken dictation, so the work was the lecturer&#8217;s own literary work. Second, that the writer had worked under the lecturer&#8217;s direction and supervision, making it a work made for hire under Article 2(31) of the Korean Copyright Act.<\/p>\n<p>The court rejected both. A work made for hire under Korean law requires the planning of the legal entity, creation by an employee, creation in the course of duties, publication under the entity&#8217;s name, and the absence of any contrary agreement. Here the writer received no salary, and there was no arrangement on working days, hours, or place; he retained substantial discretion. The court applied the established position that Article 9 of the Korean Copyright Act is an exception to the creator principle and must therefore be construed narrowly (Supreme Court of Korea 92Da31309; Supreme Court of Korea 2021Da236111).<\/p>\n<p>What proved decisive was the difference in form. The lectures were delivered in colloquial speech, while the finished work was written in verse with literary phrasing and meter. The court treated this as reflecting the writer&#8217;s own creative judgment to a substantial degree.<\/p>\n<p>Why, then, a joint work rather than the writer&#8217;s sole work? The court pointed out that the lecturer, far from objecting, confirmed and accepted the creative reworking and went on to register the copyright in his own name, while the writer supplied a certificate of first publication for that registration. On those facts both men held the intent to create a single work in which their respective contributions could not be separately exploited.<\/p>\n<p>That intent is not an intent to become legal co-authors. The Supreme Court of Korea defined it as &#8220;an intent to produce, through joint creative activity, a single work in which the part each has contributed cannot be separately exploited&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea 2012Do16066). Two people need not sit down together, and need not call each other co-authors, for a joint work to arise.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-2\">Why did the Supreme Court of Korea say this was not infringement?<\/h2>\n<p class=\"lead-text\">Because Article 48(1) of the Korean Copyright Act governs the <strong>method of exercising<\/strong> rights among co-authors, not the question of infringement. That ruling, however, arose in a criminal case.<\/p>\n<p>The first sentence of Article 48(1) provides that the economic rights in a joint work may not be exercised without the unanimous agreement of all rights holders. Where one co-author of a theatrical script used the script without the other&#8217;s agreement, the prosecution charged infringement of economic rights.<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court of Korea affirmed the acquittal, holding that the provision &#8220;merely prescribes the method of exercising the economic rights in a single joint work whose contributions cannot be separately exploited, so where a co-author uses the joint work without the agreement of the other co-author, that amounts only to a violation of the method of exercise prescribed by the provision and does not extend to infringement of the other co-author&#8217;s economic rights in the joint work&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea 2012Do16066).<\/p>\n<p>This ruling is widely cited in Korean practice. It largely explains why criminal complaints between co-authors tend to end without charges. The open question is whether the same sentence governs civil claims.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-3\">So why did the civil courts award damages anyway?<\/h2>\n<p class=\"lead-text\">Because criminal and civil liability are assessed differently under South Korean law. Lower courts hold that the 2014 ruling concerned the elements of a criminal offense and therefore does not automatically govern civil claims. That civil rule became final in January 2026.<\/p>\n<h3>How the rule was built<\/h3>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Stage<\/th>\n<th>Judgment<\/th>\n<th>Substance<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Formulated<\/td>\n<td>Seoul Central District Court, November 9, 2023 (2019Gahap579315)<\/td>\n<td>Set out six grounds for treating unconsented self-use as civil infringement of economic rights<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Adopted<\/td>\n<td>Seoul High Court, August 28, 2025 (2023Na2056379)<\/td>\n<td>Adopted those grounds and granted an injunction based on breach of the duty not to exercise the rights without agreement<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Final<\/td>\n<td>Supreme Court of Korea, January 8, 2026 (2025Da217641)<\/td>\n<td>Appeal dismissed without further review<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 expressly joined that line, recording in a footnote that its principal reasoning drew on Seoul High Court 2023Na2056379, which became final through the dismissal in Supreme Court of Korea 2025Da217641, together with the passages of the first-instance judgment, Seoul Central District Court 2019Gahap579315, that the appellate judgment adopted.<\/p>\n<h3>What separates civil from criminal liability<\/h3>\n<p><strong>First, the criminal provision defines its own elements.<\/strong> Article 136(1)(i) of the Korean Copyright Act does not cross-refer to a civil provision in the form &#8220;a person who violates Article X.&#8221; It independently defines the offense as infringing economic rights &#8220;by way of reproduction, public performance, public transmission, exhibition, distribution, rental, or creation of a derivative work.&#8221; Criminal liability additionally requires unlawfulness and culpability, and the statute contains no definition of &#8220;infringement.&#8221; On that footing the criminal ruling cannot simply be transposed to civil law.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Second, the converse reading confers a position on each rights holder.<\/strong> If unanimous agreement is required, each rights holder holds &#8220;the position of deciding whether to consent when another rights holder seeks to exercise a specific right.&#8221; Exercising rights without that agreement injures the interest flowing from that position.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Third, treating it as non-infringement would leave a gap in remedies.<\/strong> The other rights holders could then only claim a share of profits under Article 48(2). An injunction founded on breach of a duty to refrain is conceivable, but Chapter IX of the Korean Copyright Act, which contains the special rules for infringement proceedings, would not apply. And once the work has been assigned to a third party, that duty binds no one, leaving no basis to stop the use.<\/p>\n<p>Moral rights follow the same structure. Article 15(1) of the Korean Copyright Act likewise requires unanimous agreement among the authors. Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 held that a co-author &#8220;must seek agreement from the other co-authors before exercising the rights, and must consider whether the other co-author obstructed agreement in bad faith; where the rights were exercised unilaterally without that process, infringement is established absent special circumstances.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The practical consequence is direct. <strong>A criminal complaint that ends without charges does not mean the civil claim fails.<\/strong> In this case the writer had filed a criminal complaint against the lecturer, and then found himself ordered to pay damages in the civil action.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-4\">Why may Korean patent co-owners work alone when co-authors may not?<\/h2>\n<p class=\"lead-text\">Because the statutes say so. Korean patent, utility model, and design law expressly permit independent working, while the Korean Copyright Act contains no such provision and requires unanimous agreement instead. This contrast is itself part of the courts&#8217; reasoning.<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Right<\/th>\n<th>Provision<\/th>\n<th>May a co-owner use it alone?<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Patent<\/td>\n<td>Article 99(3), Korean Patent Act<\/td>\n<td>Yes \u2014 each co-owner &#8220;may work the patented invention without the consent of the other co-owners, except where otherwise specifically agreed by contract&#8221;<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Utility model<\/td>\n<td>Article 28, Korean Utility Model Act (applying Article 99, Patent Act)<\/td>\n<td>Yes<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Design<\/td>\n<td>Article 96(3), Korean Design Protection Act<\/td>\n<td>Yes \u2014 may &#8220;work the registered design independently without the consent of the other co-owners&#8221;<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Trademark<\/td>\n<td>Article 93, Korean Trademark Act<\/td>\n<td>No express provision \u2014 only assignment of shares (paragraph 2) and licensing (paragraph 3) require unanimous consent<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Copyright<\/td>\n<td>Articles 48(1) and 15(1), Korean Copyright Act<\/td>\n<td>No \u2014 unanimous agreement required<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>The courts locate the reason in the nature of the subject matter. A work is &#8220;a creative production expressing human thoughts or emotions,&#8221; which calls for a stronger collective character among the rights holders. Unlike a patented invention or a registered design, which presuppose industrial exploitation, a work carries moral interests alongside economic ones.<\/p>\n<p>The Korean Copyright Act does not close off solo action entirely. Article 129 allows each co-author to seek an injunction under Article 123 without the others&#8217; consent, and to claim damages under Article 125 for their own share. Where solo action is needed, the statute says so expressly.<\/p>\n<h3>The nature of co-ownership also differs by right<\/h3>\n<p>Even among industrial property rights, the Supreme Court of Korea has characterized co-ownership differently.<\/p>\n<p>For <strong>patents<\/strong>, it held that &#8220;since each co-owner may not assign their share or create a pledge over it without the consent of the other co-owners, and may not grant an exclusive or non-exclusive license over the patent, the co-ownership of a patent has a character akin to joint ownership (hapyu)&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea 97Da41295). Korean law distinguishes joint ownership (hapyu), in which the co-owners may not freely dispose of their shares, from co-ownership in shares (gongyu), in which they may.<\/p>\n<p>For <strong>trademarks<\/strong>, the emphasis differs: &#8220;although it has a character similar to joint ownership (hapyu), that restriction appears merely to derive from the special nature of a trademark as an intangible property right, and since the Korean Trademark Act contains no express provision treating trademark co-ownership as joint ownership (hapyu), the provisions of the Korean Civil Act on co-ownership in shares (gongyu) may apply to trademark co-ownership to the extent they do not conflict with other provisions of the Korean Trademark Act or its essential nature&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea 2002Hu567). On that basis a single co-owner may bring an action to cancel a trial decision.<\/p>\n<p>The consent threshold likewise splits three ways: unanimous consent (assignment of shares, exclusive licensing, exercise of rights in a joint work), a majority of shares, and solo action. The Supreme Court of Korea has held that licensing a well-known mark after the registered trademark right has lapsed &#8220;constitutes an act of management of the well-known mark, so that, absent special agreement among the co-holders, it may be decided by a majority of the co-holders&#8217; shares by analogous application of the main text of Article 265 of the Korean Civil Act&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea 2023Da216302).<\/p>\n<p>The lesson is that assuming co-ownership works the same way across rights is unsafe. <strong>The number of consents you need depends on which right is involved and what you intend to do.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-5\">Does sole-name copyright registration infringe by itself?<\/h2>\n<p class=\"lead-text\">Registration alone is generally not infringement. Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 separated the registration from the publication and found infringement only in the latter.<\/p>\n<p>The lecturer challenged two acts: registering the joint work in the writer&#8217;s sole name, and publishing a book naming the writer as the only author.<\/p>\n<p>On registration, the court reasoned as follows. The work had already been made available to the public on a website before registration, so no issue of the right of publication arose. Copyright registration is a system that gives notice of the author&#8217;s name and creates a presumption of authorship; it is &#8220;difficult to regard it as an act of indicating one&#8217;s real name on the original or a copy of the work, or on the medium of publication,&#8221; so no right of attribution issue arose either. Registration is neither reproduction nor distribution.<\/p>\n<p>Publication was different. Naming only the writer as author on a joint work infringed the <strong>right of attribution<\/strong>, and reproducing 300 copies and distributing them to acquaintances infringed the <strong>rights of reproduction and distribution<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>One practical caveat deserves attention. The court noted in a footnote that &#8220;the act of copyright registration&#8221; itself is conceptually distinct from &#8220;the act of submitting the original or a copy of the work bearing one&#8217;s own name during the registration application.&#8221; The latter was simply not pleaded in this case. How the claim is framed can change the outcome.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-6\">Why were the damages only KRW 1.5 million?<\/h2>\n<p class=\"lead-text\">Because the respective contributions were never proven, triggering the presumption of equal shares, and because there was no material from which to calculate the infringer&#8217;s profit. Of the KRW 30 million claimed, KRW 1.5 million was awarded.<\/p>\n<div class=\"formula\">\n<div class=\"f-item\">\n<div class=\"f-num\">KRW 500,000<\/div>\n<div class=\"f-label\">Economic rights<br \/>(reproduction, distribution)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"f-op\">+<\/div>\n<div class=\"f-item\">\n<div class=\"f-num\">KRW 1,000,000<\/div>\n<div class=\"f-label\">Solatium for moral rights<br \/>(right of attribution)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"f-op\">=<\/div>\n<div class=\"f-item f-result\">\n<div class=\"f-num\">KRW 1,500,000<\/div>\n<div class=\"f-label\">Awarded<br \/>(claimed: KRW 30,000,000)<\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<h3>Undefined shares are presumed equal<\/h3>\n<p>Article 48(2) of the Korean Copyright Act allocates profits from the exploitation of a joint work according to the degree of each author&#8217;s contribution, and provides that &#8220;where the degree of each contribution is unclear, it is presumed to be equal.&#8221; No contribution evidence was produced here, so the two men&#8217;s contributions were presumed equal and damages were limited to the corresponding share.<\/p>\n<p>The same structure appears in patent law. The Supreme Court of Korea held that, for the right to obtain a patent held in co-ownership, &#8220;if there is a separate agreement among the co-owners as to shares, that agreement governs; absent such agreement, the shares are presumed equal under Article 262(2) of the Korean Civil Act&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea 2011Da77313). Whatever the right, <strong>shares left undefined are calculated as equal regardless of actual contribution.<\/strong><\/p>\n<h3>Where profit cannot be calculated, the court sets a reasonable figure<\/h3>\n<p>Article 125(1) of the Korean Copyright Act presumes the infringer&#8217;s profit to be the rights holder&#8217;s loss, and Article 126 allows the court to fix a reasonable amount where loss is established but cannot be quantified under Article 125.<\/p>\n<p>The court weighed the following. The book ran to about 283 pages, of which the contested work occupied 139, and 300 copies were printed. The customary gain from a published book is royalties, and royalties attributable to that portion of a short print run could not be regarded as large. Beyond that, the copies were not sold but given away. On those facts the court fixed damages for the economic rights at KRW 500,000.<\/p>\n<p>The KRW 1 million solatium rested on different considerations. The court weighed against the writer that the infringement was neither isolated nor brief, that he had filed a criminal complaint against the lecturer during the same period, and that he maintained through the appeal that he was the sole rights holder. In mitigation, he was himself a co-author, and the joint authorship was established only through the litigation.<\/p>\n<p>Costs deserve a note of their own. <strong>The claimant bore 90 percent of the total litigation costs<\/strong>, having claimed KRW 30 million and recovered KRW 1.5 million. Winning does not guarantee a net gain.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-7\">Are you liable even if you did not know the work was joint?<\/h2>\n<p class=\"lead-text\">Infringement is still established. Whether you knew, however, feeds into intent and negligence, which determine whether damages are payable at all.<\/p>\n<p>Real disputes usually begin with one party believing they are the sole author, and joint authorship is often confirmed only through litigation. That raises the question whether it is harsh to find infringement against such a party.<\/p>\n<p>The court took the opposite view: protection is needed more, not less, in that situation, because there will usually be no prior agreement, license, or profit-sharing arrangement to fall back on.<\/p>\n<p>There is a counterweight. The judgment states that &#8220;the fact that a party did not recognize the work as a joint work at the time of exercising the copyright may be considered in determining whether intent or negligence is present on the part of the person who exercised the joint copyright without the agreement of the other co-owners, and thus whether civil liability for damages arises.&#8221; Infringement is not denied, but liability does not follow automatically.<\/p>\n<p>Here intent or negligence was found. The writer had begun the work at the lecturer&#8217;s request, the lecturer had registered the copyright in several of the works, and the writer had supplied a certificate of first publication for that registration. Objective traces of the other party&#8217;s involvement remained.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-8\">How far do injunctions reach under South Korean law?<\/h2>\n<p class=\"lead-text\">In this case the claims to enjoin lectures, YouTube videos, and &#8220;other internet media&#8221; were <strong>dismissed for lack of specificity<\/strong>. Only publication was enjoined, and even then not outright: what was prohibited was publication that omits the other co-author&#8217;s name.<\/p>\n<p>In Korean civil procedure the relief sought must be specified so that its content and scope are clearly ascertainable. Where an injunction against patent infringement is sought, the product or process must be &#8220;specified concretely enough to be distinguishable from others as the subject of the injunction sought, according to ordinary social notions&#8221; (Supreme Court of Korea 2011Da17090). The court held that the same principle applies to injunctions against copyright infringement.<\/p>\n<p>Lectures and YouTube videos were expected to be delivered orally, and infringing acts within them could not be identified individually and concretely. &#8220;Other internet media&#8221; was undefined in scope. Even if judgment were entered, the relief could not be specified clearly enough to be enforceable.<\/p>\n<p>The court addressed freedom of expression expressly in a footnote: enjoining the oral delivery and dissemination of lectures and videos &#8220;risks a serious infringement of the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution, so the specificity of the subject of the injunction and its requirements must be examined strictly.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Publication was different. Authorship is clearly indicated and reproduction and distribution can be verified objectively, so the claim could be specified. Even there the court stopped short of a blanket ban. <strong>Since the defendant was himself a co-author, prohibiting publication outright was inappropriate; the court enjoined only publication that fails to name the other co-author.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>For litigation strategy the point is concrete. <strong>Even where infringement is established, what you actually recover depends on how the relief is framed.<\/strong> Narrowing the prohibited conduct to an enforceable form works better than listing media channels.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-9\">What should foreign companies in the IFEZ do before collaborating?<\/h2>\n<p class=\"lead-text\">Settle the shares and the consent procedure in writing before creation begins. For companies operating in the Incheon Free Economic Zone (IFEZ), the risk is concrete: the same collaboration can produce opposite outcomes depending on which right protects the output.<\/p>\n<p>Foreign companies in Songdo International Business District, Cheongna International City, and Yeongjong International City routinely commission content, software, design, and training material from Korean partners, and joint development agreements are common. Two features of South Korean law deserve attention.<\/p>\n<p><strong>First, a work made for hire is construed narrowly.<\/strong> A company does not become the author merely because it paid for the work and put its name on it. All five requirements of Articles 2(31) and 9 of the Korean Copyright Act must be met, and Korean courts apply them restrictively. Where a contractor rather than an employee produced the material, the company may find itself a co-author at best.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Second, joint authorship blocks unilateral exploitation.<\/strong> If the deliverable is a joint work, the company cannot publish, translate, or adapt it without the Korean partner&#8217;s agreement, and doing so is civil infringement under the rule confirmed in 2026. The same collaboration, if it had produced a patentable invention or a registered design instead, would allow each co-owner to work it independently under Article 99(3) of the Korean Patent Act or Article 96(3) of the Korean Design Protection Act.<\/p>\n<p>Four points belong in the agreement: the shares and how contribution is measured; the consent procedure for each mode of exploitation, together with what happens if agreement is not reached; how names are to be credited; and how revenue is calculated and settled. Where the output may be protected by more than one right, the clauses should track each right separately.<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"sec-faq\">Frequently asked questions<\/h2>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. Can a work be a joint work under Korean law even if the two people never wrote together?<\/p>\n<p>A. Yes. Under South Korean law the required intent to create jointly is not an intent to become legal co-authors, but an intent to produce a single work in which each contribution cannot be separately exploited (Supreme Court of Korea 2012Do16066). In Suwon High Court 2025Na13164, a lecturer spoke and a follower turned the material into verse; the court still found a joint work because the lecturer accepted the creative reworking and registered the copyright in his own name.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. Is using a joint work without the other co-author&#8217;s consent a crime in South Korea?<\/p>\n<p>A. No, not as a copyright offense. The Supreme Court of Korea held that Article 48(1) of the Korean Copyright Act governs only how co-authors exercise their rights among themselves, so using the work without consent merely violates that method of exercise and does not amount to infringement of the other co-author&#8217;s economic rights (Supreme Court of Korea 2012Do16066). That ruling addressed the elements of a criminal offense.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. If it is not a crime, does that mean there is no civil liability either?<\/p>\n<p>A. No. Korean lower courts hold that the criminal ruling addressed a separately defined criminal offense and therefore does not automatically govern civil liability. The civil rule was set out in Seoul Central District Court 2019Gahap579315, adopted by Seoul High Court 2023Na2056379, and became final when the Supreme Court of Korea dismissed the appeal in 2025Da217641 on January 8, 2026.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. Why may co-owners of a Korean patent work the invention alone when co-authors may not?<\/p>\n<p>A. Because the statutes differ. Article 99(3) of the Korean Patent Act allows each co-owner to work the patented invention without the other co-owners&#8217; consent unless otherwise agreed by contract. Article 96(3) of the Korean Design Protection Act is the same, and Article 28 of the Korean Utility Model Act applies Article 99 of the Patent Act. The Korean Copyright Act contains no such provision and instead requires unanimous agreement under Article 48(1).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. Does registering a joint work in one co-author&#8217;s sole name infringe by itself?<\/p>\n<p>A. Registration alone is generally not infringement. Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 held that copyright registration is not an act of indicating a name on the original, a copy, or the medium of publication, so it does not raise a right of attribution issue, and it is neither reproduction nor distribution. What the court found infringing was publishing, reproducing, and distributing the book with only one person named as author.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. Why were the damages only KRW 1.5 million?<\/p>\n<p>A. Because the respective contributions were never proven. Article 48(2) of the Korean Copyright Act presumes equal shares where the degree of each contribution is unclear. In Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 no contribution evidence was produced, and because 300 copies had been given away for free there was no way to calculate profit, so the court set damages at KRW 500,000 for the economic rights under Article 126 and KRW 1,000,000 as solatium for the right of attribution.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. What if the other co-author simply refuses to agree?<\/p>\n<p>A. The statute addresses this. The second sentences of Article 48(1) and Article 15(1) of the Korean Copyright Act provide that no rights holder may obstruct agreement or withhold consent in bad faith. Korean courts read this flexibly, weighing the effort made to reach agreement, whether reasonable compensation was offered, and the reasons for refusal. Article 129 also lets each co-author seek an injunction and damages for their own share without the others&#8217; consent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"faq-item\">\n<p class=\"faq-q\">Q. What should a foreign company operating in the Incheon Free Economic Zone do about this?<\/p>\n<p>A. Fix the shares and the consent procedure in writing before creation begins. Companies in Songdo International Business District, Cheongna International City, and Yeongjong International City frequently commission content, software, and design from Korean partners. Because Korean copyright law requires unanimous agreement while Korean patent and design law allow independent working, the same collaboration can produce opposite outcomes depending on which right protects the output.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p class=\"closing\">This line of judgments shows that identical conduct can produce different outcomes in criminal and civil proceedings under South Korean law, and that the divergence settled into lower-court practice once the Supreme Court of Korea let the civil rule stand in January 2026. Rights in a joint work are far simpler to define at the outset of a collaboration than to litigate after a dispute has arisen.<\/p>\n<div class=\"author-box\">\n    <img decoding=\"async\" class=\"author-avatar\" src=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/\ubc15\uc18c\uc601-1.png\" alt=\"Soyoung Park, Representative Attorney \u2014 Atlas Legal\"><\/p>\n<div class=\"author-text\">\n<div class=\"author-section-label\">About the Author<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-name\">Soyoung Park | Representative Attorney<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-detail\">Family Law, Inheritance, Construction &amp; Real Estate Disputes<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-detail\">Judicial Research and Training Institute, 33rd Class<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-detail\">Korea University, Department of Law<\/div>\n<div class=\"author-detail\">Atlas Legal | Incheon Songdo, South Korea<\/div>\n<p>      <a class=\"author-link\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Visit Atlas Legal Homepage \u2192<\/a>\n    <\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In South Korea, using a joint work without a co-author&#8217;s consent is no crime but is civil infringement. Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 awarded damages.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_post_transparent":"","_kad_post_title":"","_kad_post_layout":"","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[228],"tags":[930,137,931,928,929],"class_list":["post-1944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intellectual-property","tag-co-ownership","tag-copyright-infringement","tag-intellectual-property","tag-joint-works","tag-korean-copyright-act"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Joint Work Infringement in South Korea | Atlas Legal<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In South Korea, using a joint work without a co-author&#039;s consent is no crime but is civil infringement. Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 awarded damages.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Joint Work Infringement in South Korea | Atlas Legal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In South Korea, using a joint work without a co-author&#039;s consent is no crime but is civil infringement. Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 awarded damages.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Atlas Legal Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-29T03:52:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-29T03:54:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55\"},\"headline\":\"Using a Joint Work Without Consent in South Korea \u2014 No Crime, but Damages Nonetheless\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-29T03:52:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-29T03:54:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":4317,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Co-Ownership\",\"copyright infringement\",\"Intellectual Property\",\"Joint Works\",\"Korean Copyright Act\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\\\/\",\"name\":\"Joint Work Infringement in South Korea | Atlas Legal\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-29T03:52:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-29T03:54:10+00:00\",\"description\":\"In South Korea, using a joint work without a co-author's consent is no crime but is civil infringement. Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 awarded damages.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"\ud648\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Using a Joint Work Without Consent in South Korea \u2014 No Crime, but Damages Nonetheless\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png\",\"width\":540,\"height\":485,\"caption\":\"Atlas Legal English Blog\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55\",\"name\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f03bca99acfafded0c4fa1b01dee8839b10f831ccba39db4d9dc175f44d3d640?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f03bca99acfafded0c4fa1b01dee8839b10f831ccba39db4d9dc175f44d3d640?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f03bca99acfafded0c4fa1b01dee8839b10f831ccba39db4d9dc175f44d3d640?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/atlaw.kr\\\/en-blog\\\/author\\\/prinz001\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Joint Work Infringement in South Korea | Atlas Legal","description":"In South Korea, using a joint work without a co-author's consent is no crime but is civil infringement. Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 awarded damages.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Joint Work Infringement in South Korea | Atlas Legal","og_description":"In South Korea, using a joint work without a co-author's consent is no crime but is civil infringement. Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 awarded damages.","og_url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/","og_site_name":"Atlas Legal Blog","article_published_time":"2026-08-29T03:52:06+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-29T03:54:10+00:00","author":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/"},"author":{"name":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55"},"headline":"Using a Joint Work Without Consent in South Korea \u2014 No Crime, but Damages Nonetheless","datePublished":"2026-08-29T03:52:06+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-29T03:54:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/"},"wordCount":4317,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization"},"keywords":["Co-Ownership","copyright infringement","Intellectual Property","Joint Works","Korean Copyright Act"],"articleSection":["Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/","name":"Joint Work Infringement in South Korea | Atlas Legal","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-08-29T03:52:06+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-29T03:54:10+00:00","description":"In South Korea, using a joint work without a co-author's consent is no crime but is civil infringement. Suwon High Court 2025Na13164 awarded damages.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/joint-work-infringement-south-korea\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"\ud648","item":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Using a Joint Work Without Consent in South Korea \u2014 No Crime, but Damages Nonetheless"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/","name":"Atlas Legal English Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#organization","name":"Atlas Legal English Blog","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/09\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2025\/09\/\ud3f4\ub354-\uc0c1\ub2e8-\uc9c1\uc0ac\uac01\ud615.png","width":540,"height":485,"caption":"Atlas Legal English Blog"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/#\/schema\/person\/184bcdecc06f89fd6c36b29781165b55","name":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f03bca99acfafded0c4fa1b01dee8839b10f831ccba39db4d9dc175f44d3d640?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f03bca99acfafded0c4fa1b01dee8839b10f831ccba39db4d9dc175f44d3d640?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f03bca99acfafded0c4fa1b01dee8839b10f831ccba39db4d9dc175f44d3d640?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"\ubc95\ubb34\ubc95\uc778 \uc544\ud2c0\ub77c\uc2a4"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/atlaw.kr"],"url":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/author\/prinz001\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1944","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1944"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1944\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1946,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1944\/revisions\/1946"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/atlaw.kr\/en-blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}