1. The plaintiff's appeal is 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 for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where each of the “in the process of trial” under Articles 3(b)(1) and 4(4) of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as “in the process of trial.” As such, this part of the judgment is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Accordingly, it is cited under the

2. Determination on the claim of this case

A. The reasons why the court's assertion of the parties is stated in this part are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

B. 1) We examine whether the Plaintiff, upon the occurrence of the claim for damages, has the right to claim damages as the author of each of the instant works. The facts contained earlier, as well as evidence Nos. 10, 2 and 9 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) of the aforementioned evidence.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the author of each of the instant copyrighted works is the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation for damages arising from the infringement of copyright of each of the instant copyrighted works. ① In each of the instant copyrighted works, the Plaintiff registered as a copyright, and in the absence of an indication of the author, it is presumed that the publisher, performer, or publisher has the copyright in the case of copyrighted works without an indication of the author (Article 8(2) of the Copyright Act) (Article 8(2) of the Copyright Act; however, in the case of copyrighted works Nos. 2 and 6, the registration of the copyright was cancelled; however, it is difficult to view that the ground for registration was made by falsity and the date of publication, and thus, the Plaintiff

② The Defendants asserted that each of the instant copyrighted works is the occupational works of Z in which the Plaintiff was employed as executive officers and employees.

However, it is intended to be recognized as an occupational work.