(a) A case which has recognized a separate copyright in respect of the revised edition of "Shographs and Korean Languages";

(b) Whether the consent of the author is required in order to recognize the copyright of the original author where the copyright of the original author is extinguished;

A. The case holding that, in the case where the Korean Emotional Association issued the revised edition around 1961 by inserting the 31st page of the 31st page of the 1952, the translation of 200 and the 370th page of the 370 page and the 37th page of the 370 page and the 100 page of the 1961 in a different translation in accordance with the Korean language law and Korean language expression, the 1961 board is modified to change the meaning of the 1952 name so that the 1952 name of the 1952 name of the author and changed the 1961 name of the 1952 name, and thus, the 1961 board cannot be deemed to be identical to the 1952 name of the author and the 1961 name of the 1952 name of the author.

B. In a case where the copyright on the original work in hybrua is already extinguished as a result of sex, the copyright on the derivative work shall be deemed to belong to the originator of the original work, regardless of whether the original author has consented, as there is no room for the problem of the consent of the original author.

Articles 5(1) and 33 of the former Copyright Act; Article 38 of the Copyright Act; Article 3(2) of the Addenda to the Copyright Act ( December 31, 1986)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na39176 delivered on January 20, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the decision of the court below, the defendant, as an incorporated foundation established for the purpose of translation and publication of 1952, published 1938's 192's 195's e.g., 2's e., 1952's e., e., 1952's e.g., 197's e., e., 196's e., e., 197's e., e., 196's e., e., 196's e., e., 196's e., e., 196's e., e., 196's e., e., 196's e., e., e., 196's e., e., 196's e., e., 196's e.

In light of the records, the recognition and decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the originality of works such as the theory of lawsuit, or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence as to the first year of publication in the 1961 sexual concurrence. There is no reason for the argument.

On the second ground for appeal

Article 5 (1) of the former Copyright Act, which was in force at the time of the publication of the original work in the year 1961, provides that "a person who translates, alters, or publishes another's work with the consent of the creator shall be deemed an author under this Act within the scope not infringing the rights of the author." However, as in the process of this case, if the copyright of the original work in the 1961 term has already been extinguished as in the course of the original work, it is not likely to be a problem of the consent of the author, and the copyright of the derivative work in the 1961 term work shall be deemed to be attributed to the author of the translation regardless of the consent of the original author. Thus, the part in the court below's statement that the original work in the year 1952 term is "the original work" is contrary to the general usage of the term "the original work", and its expression is not appropriate, but it is not reasonable to consider the legal reasoning of the original author's consent. Therefore, the decision of the court below is without merit.

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 Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)