All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the admitted evidence.

(1) On January 5, 2004, EXENT Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EXE”) entered into a program development consignment agreement (hereinafter “instant development consignment agreement”) with the Plaintiff on the content that the Plaintiff would develop and supply the “EXEline” (hereinafter “instant program”) a warehouse management program, for a cost of KRW 50 million. Article 7 of the agreement provides that “A (EXE) shall belong to the Plaintiff for all rights to the output of the service performance result submitted by B (Plaintiff).”

(2) Under the instant development consignment agreement, on February 26, 2004, the Plaintiff provided the instant program, which is a output that completed development to EXE, as well as its source code.

B. Based on such recognition, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff should interpret the instant development consignment agreement as an agreement to transfer to EXE the author’s property right to the instant program, on the grounds that there are no special circumstances to deem the Plaintiff as a person engaged in EXE’s work, such as where the Plaintiff and EXE agreed that all rights to the instant program, which is a program included in development outcomes, belong to EXE, while entering into the instant development consignment agreement.

The judgment below

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

(a) Derivative works are separate from the original work;