[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that musical works are merely a combination of sole works, and that musical producers cannot be deemed as independent copyright holders unless they have made a creative contribution to the completion of musical activities, and that musical writers, musical investments, etc. have neighboring rights in the performance itself

The court below held that the applicant's musical work planned and produced by the applicant is "O○ musical work" and that the respondent is the copyright holder of the musical work planned and produced by the applicant ("the musical work of this case") or the co-copyrighter's assertion, and that the musical work of this case is closely linked to the musical and musical structure of a theater, and that the musical work of this case belongs to the area of the comprehensive art combined with the musical and musical music, musical music, housework, and stage art, and the copyrighted work may be used separately from the musical contribution of each of the authors, but the court below's determination that the musical work of this case may not be deemed as a "combined musical work," which is merely a combination of non-joint works, in light of the legal principles as to the musical work of the producer of the musical work of this case, and there is no ground to re-appeal the author of the musical work of this case as an independent musical work of the author of the musical work of this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the author of the musical work of this case.

Furthermore, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning by taking account of the admitted evidence, determined that the applicant 1, 2, and the applicant 3 participate in the production and performance of ○○ Museum as a musical researcher, the applicant 2, offered the applicant 2 to the main writers or writers by taking advantage of the basic setting of ○○○ Museum from a foreign motion picture, and the applicant 3 was involved in the correction of some scripts or housework, and the applicant 3 was in the production process and performance of ○○ Museum, and the applicant 3 was not in charge of the overall comparison and direction and supervision of the applicant's musical work, but the applicant was not in charge of the applicant's musical work, and the applicant's 1 or 2 was not in charge of the applicant's musical work, and the applicant's 1 or 3 was not in charge of the applicant's musical work, and the applicant's 1 or 2 was in the form of the musical work and the ability to make the musical work and the musical work in the form of the applicant's musical work.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to musical copyright and rights to produce and distribute, or in violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the grounds for re-appeal. The Supreme Court's decision in the grounds for re-appeal cannot be an appropriate precedent of this case, unlike the case and its purport

Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)