1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of "1. Basic Facts", and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Article 12(3) of the instant contract provides that “Where part or all of the instant contract is transferred to another person without the consent of the other party” is a ground for termination of the instant contract.

However, Defendant B transferred the author’s property right of the instant work to Defendant C, and transferred part of the instant contract by concluding an an animation contract with Defendant D, E, and transferring the right to make a derivative work of the instant work.

Accordingly, around April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the termination of the instant contract. The instant contract was lawfully terminated at that time, and the author’s property right to the instant work is again attributed to the Plaintiff.

B. Even if the author’s property right of the instant copyrighted work was transferred to Defendant B pursuant to the instant contract infringing on the copyright of the character, the character of this case appearing in the instant copyrighted work was not included in the subject of transfer as a separate copyrighted work protected under the Copyright Act.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, without permission, infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright by preparing secondary copyrighted works, such as H cartoons and H musical works, using the instant character.

C. The provision to the effect that the right to create derivative works is transferred in entirety under the instant contract, which is null and void under Article 5(1) of the instant contract, is unfair, and is null and void in violation of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Standard Contracts Regulation Act”).

Defendant B and C infringed the Plaintiff’s moral rights by expressing I in bad faith on the instant work, which is the Plaintiff’s sole work, as a joint author, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s right of attribution.

Defendant B and C shall have the inherent nature of the instant work.