(a) The case holding that the author's property right in the copyright of the derivative work acquired by the Party A under a contract was transferred to Party B in light of the contract provision that "If Party A has the right to reproduce and distribute the derivative work that is translated into the original work, the author's property right in the copyright of the derivative work acquired by the Party A is transferred to Party B, in view of the contract provision that "the copyright of all books published under this contract shall belong to Party B and belongs to Party B"

B. The time of establishment of the so-called secondary copyright under Article 5 (1) of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 13916 of Dec. 31, 1986), and the purport of the contract provisions under Paragraph (a) above

C. Whether the significance, book, etc. of the secondary work indicates the character of the original author in a book, etc., and whether the original work can be deemed as a derivative work, in case where the author has arranged or added a translation, book, etc. to the English literature of the original work, and the translation, book, etc. is required to be resumed (affirmative)

D. Whether the right to reproduce and distribute an original work is also included in the right to reproduce and distribute the original work, in a case where the right to reproduce and distribute the original work is acquired under a contract, which is interpreted as translation into Korean language (negative)

E. Whether a foreigner’s copyright transferred from a Korean person at the time of the enforcement of the former Copyright Act is a foreigner’s copyright under Article 46 of the same Act (negative)

A. The case holding that if the right acquired under the contract was not a reproduction and distribution right of △△△△△△○’s original work, which is an original work, but a right to reproduce and distribute the original work at the end of Korea, it is not necessary to clarify that the copyright of the original work of the U.S. company Eul still remains in the above contract because it is not affected by the copyright of the original work, and if the copyright of the original work remains in the form of Gap without transferring the author’s property right to the second work to Eul, even after the contract is terminated, the above contract is obliged to deliver the reproduction materials, etc. required for the production of the second work to Eul, and even after the contract is terminated, the copyright of the original work is transferred to Eul under the name of 15 U.S. 2, and the copyright is transferred to Eul under the name of 16 U.S. 3, and the copyright is transferred to Eul under the name of 15 U.S. 16, Korea’s Copyright Act.

B. According to Article 5(1) of the same Act, a person who translates, alters, or edits another’s work with the consent of the creator shall be deemed to have the copyright on the work to the extent that it does not infringe the rights of the author. Such copyright is naturally established upon the completion of the secondary work regardless of a specific form or procedure by nature. The author of the secondary work shall be deemed to have completed the secondary work and acquire the copyright on the whole of the work to the extent that it does not infringe on the rights of the author. Thus, the contract provisions such as Article 5(1) of the same Act are correct to interpret that the author of the secondary work shall simultaneously create the right and transfer the author’s property right on the secondary work acquired at the same time by the copyright holder of the original work.

C. The term "second-class work" refers to a creative work produced by means of translation, adaptation, compilation, or other means of an existing work (original work) and a person who has created a second-class work with the consent of the creator shall have the copyright to the second-class work itself to the extent that it does not infringe the rights of the author. If the book, camera tape, card, etc. indicate the character of the author on the book, etc., and if the book, camera tape, card, etc. indicate the character of the author on the English literature of the original work by arranging or adding a Korean translation, literary book, etc. on the English literature of the original work, it shall be deemed that the original and its translation or Korean language have been made by combining it with an indivisible work, and therefore, it is reasonable to view it as a single work as a derivative work.

D. If a person acquires a right to reproduce and distribute an original work of a derivative work which is translated into Korean language through a contract, it does not mean that the right to reproduce and distribute the original work includes the right to reproduce and distribute it, but it does not mean that this includes the right to reproduce and distribute the original work of an original document or the right to reproduce and distribute the original document.

E. The foreigner's copyright stipulated in Article 46 of the former Copyright Act refers to the foreigner's right to copyrighted works. Thus, at the time of the enforcement of the same Act, a foreigner's copyright transferred from a Korean person cannot be deemed as a foreigner's copyright under the same Act.

(a)(c)(d) Article 5(1)(e) of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 3916 of Dec. 31, 1986); Article 46 of the same Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu4342 delivered on February 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 759)

further, Attorneys Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee-appellant and three others

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na13801 delivered on September 25, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the first and fourth points

1. Examining the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of litigation.

2. The court below recognized that the contents of the contract of this case (No. 1-6) were the content of the copyright of all books published pursuant to this contract, the copyright of this case belongs to the plaintiff (Article 7), and at the time of the termination of this contract, the defendant may dispose of its inventories only for a period not exceeding one year (Article 16), and all materials used in the production of the above books shall be delivered to the plaintiff without compensation, except for delivery expenses, which were supplied by the plaintiff or obtained by the defendant or obtained by production or other means, or if the plaintiff's request, the above materials shall be destroyed and the certificate of destruction shall be delivered to the plaintiff (Article 21). In light of the above provision of Article 5 (1) of the former Copyright Act (Act No. 432), the plaintiff's copyright of the second books acquired by the plaintiff's author's property right to the original works shall also be transferred to the plaintiff without permission, and the plaintiff's right to reproduce the original copy and the right of reproduction of the original works shall be transferred to the plaintiff.

However, according to Article 5 (1) of the former Copyright Act, a person who translates, alters, or edits another's work with the consent of the author shall be deemed to have the copyright on the work to the extent that it does not infringe the rights of the author. Such copyright is naturally established at the same time as the completion of the translation work regardless of the specific form or procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu4342, Feb. 27, 1990). The defendant shall be deemed to have acquired the copyright on the whole of the above work to the extent that the completion of the derivative work in this case and the right of the plaintiff who is the original author is not prejudicial to the original author. Thus, Article 7 of the above contract is reasonable to interpret that the defendant is to simultaneously transfer the author's property right on the derivative work acquired at the same time with the creation of the right to the plaintiff. However, it is not reasonable to judge that the decision by the court below was transferred at the same time with the conclusion of the contract, which does not affect the result of this case.

3. The author argues that the books, paintings, cards, etc. in the attached list No. 1 of the judgment of the court below produced under the contract of this case together with the original text of the plaintiff's original work and the translation thereof, and the Korean translation only is the secondary work of the defendant and the defendant does not transfer the author's property right to the translation to the plaintiff. The so-called secondary work refers to the original work (original work) which is written by means of translation, adaptation, editing, or other means, and as seen above, the author has the copyright to the secondary work within the extent that the author's consent does not infringe the author's right. The above books, paintings, tapes, cards, etc. indicate the plaintiff's character, and the author's character is arranged or added to the Korean translation of the original work, and thus, it is reasonable to view the original work as a combination or combination of the original work with Korean translation and Korean translation.

In addition, the right acquired by the Defendant under the contract of this case is the right to reproduce and distribute the original work as a right to reproduce and distribute the derivative work which translated and interpreted the original work at the end of Korea, and as a matter of course, it does not mean that this includes the right to reproduce and distribute the original work, but it does not mean that this includes the right to reproduce and distribute the original work or the original work as it is.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument on the premise that the whole of the above book, camera, tape, and card cannot be considered as a derivative work. There is no reason to discuss.

On the second ground for appeal

1. At the time of the enforcement of the former Copyright Act, it is reasonable to view that a foreigner’s copyright transferred from a Korean person is a foreigner’s copyright under Article 46 of the same Act, but a foreigner’s copyright under Article 46 of the same Act refers to a foreigner’s right to a work created by the foreigner. Therefore, it is not acceptable.

2. In addition, inasmuch as the lower court’s determination that the Plaintiff was transferred the above copyright from the Defendant and that this cannot be deemed a foreigner’s copyright is justifiable, even if this copyright belongs to the Plaintiff in the original condition, whether the lower court’s assumptive determination that this copyright belongs to the Plaintiff is justifiable or not under the proviso of Article 46 of the same Act does not affect the outcome of this case.

On the third ground for appeal

The argument in the theory of the lawsuit is nothing more than denying and denying the plaintiff's argument regarding the interpretation of Article 7 of the contract of this case. Thus, the court below's determination that the court below acknowledged it as stated in its decision and did not dismiss it separately from the defendant's argument, and the court below's reasoning stated the grounds and reasons for it. Thus, there is no illegality in the reasoning.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Young-young (Presiding Justice)