The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff KRW 25,000,000, and they share the same.

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 4, Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act provides the work as “a creative production that expresses human thoughts or emotions” and requires creativity.

Here, creativity does not require complete originality, but to be recognized as creative, at least, certain works do not simply imitate others, and must contain the author’s own expression of ideas or emotions.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da212095 Decided June 27, 2019, etc.). Meanwhile, in order to be protected as a derivative work prescribed in Article 5(1) of the Copyright Act, the original shall be based on the original, while maintaining substantial similarity with the original, and thereby adding a new creative nature by maintaining substantial similarity with the original, and adding a new creative nature by adding a modification, increase, or decrease to the extent that it can be a new work

(B) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the following circumstances are revealed. (1) The draft of this case (Evidence A7) aims to “D” as the title “D, and is a draft of the instant performance prior to the experience, wherein the progress of the ship (Y and AL) and the children’s participation in the field of two-way experience play. (2) The draft of this case is a draft of the performance prior to the experience, wherein the PP, who opened the performance site of the field of the material theater or the Obbrate theater (ojet) is interpreted as living body or various symbols are given a variety of symbols to children, so that children may live together with food, food, food, tight, and tights in a unique space depending on the flow of stories and stories set out in the planning of this case.