1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The defendant is the registrant of the work listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Production Incompetence”. Since the Plaintiff and the Defendant made clear that the copyright that they wish to dispute in this case concerns 13 of the attached Table 2 written by the Defendant’s authory, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are subject to the determination of Defendant Production Incompetence indicated in the attached Table 2, rather than the attached Table 1 written complaint, / [based on recognition] facts without dispute, entry or video of the evidence No. 6 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), entry or video of the evidence No. 1 and No. 2, the purport of the entire pleadings, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff’s non-performance of assertion is a customary determination of the character, figure, origin, background, etc. of the appearing person, and thus the author is not an individual’s original creation, but an intentional work used for religious rites. The Defendant’s non-production of production is also lacking in creativity, and thus is not a work protected under the Copyright Act.

3. For a work to be protected under the legal principles of copyright law, it shall be a creative production belonging to the category of literary, scientific or artistic works. As such, creativity is required as a requirement. It does not mean a complete originality, but merely means that a certain work does not simply imitate another's work, but includes an independent idea or expression of opinion of the author's own author. To satisfy these requirements, it is sufficient to distinguish it from the existing works of the author's own author's own, and it is sufficient to distinguish it from the existing works of the other author.

In full view of each description or image of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 of the judgment of October 23, 2003 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do446, Oct. 23, 2003). In full view of the foregoing, the degree of non-existence refers to the degree of non-existence that existed before a religious color is strong and the frame that had been previously changed is not well changed.