Update on the April 30 Supreme Court Ruling and the Current Status of the Lawsuit
@everyone, There is something I would like to share directly with our players regarding our legal dispute.
On April 30, the Supreme Court of Korea is scheduled to issue its ruling in the civil lawsuit currently ongoing between Nexon and us. This ruling is expected to be the final judgment in this case.
To briefly summarize the proceedings so far, both the first and second instance courts found, from a copyright perspective, that the two games are different and that there was no infringement.
However, with respect to trade secrets, the first instance court recognized “infringement of trade secret information based on memory,” and the second instance court recognized “use of leaked trade secret materials.” That said, the second instance judgment was not based on confirmed, specific evidence of use, but rather on an inference drawn from circumstantial facts.
For a long time, the public narrative has centered on the idea that we “stole a project for personal gain and founded a company,” and I believe the explanation of why we left Nexon and decided to make our own game has not been sufficiently conveyed.
We have consistently explained that, under the circumstances at the time, we believed it would be difficult to responsibly continue the P3 project due to a lack of support for the project and concerns about how it was being operated. However, it had been difficult to present objective grounds to support that explanation.
Recently, there was a court ruling that helps confirm this context.
https://www.donga.com/news/It/article/all/20260424/133804774/1
https://m.naeil.com/news/read/586522?ref=naver
https://www.newslock.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=129217
In that ruling, the court found that there was a legal problem with the personnel decision in which an employee who had returned from childcare leave was left in a long-term waiting status, despite having applied to the P3 project, completed an interview, and received the team’s intent to accept them, yet was not actually assigned to the project.
At the time, the P3 project was short on game design staff to the point that, among more than 20 team members, there was only one game designer. The applicant had received an evaluation indicating that there was no issue with their participation in the project, and they applied to the P3 project through the internal process. I also judged that the person was necessary for the project and requested several times that they be allowed to join the team.
At the time, I had doubts about the way the project was being supported, and this personnel decision was the event that confirmed those doubts. I judged that this personnel decision was inappropriate both from the perspective of project operation and from the perspective of how an individual employee was being treated.
I believed that, under these circumstances, it was not right to continue taking responsibility for the P3 project, and I ultimately decided to leave the company.
This ruling is not a direct judgment on the trade secret issue. However, I believe it is meaningful in that it confirms objective facts showing why, at the time, I judged that it would be difficult to responsibly continue the P3 project.