Answer:
In common law, the judicial system creates case law. In civil law, it does not. There are some countries that have a mix of the two, but generally this is the overall layout for the legal system.
Step-by-step explanation:
The difference between common law and civil law is that in common law, judges establish binding precedent, where higher courts are bound to follow the rulings of lower courts, right up to the supreme court (if there is one), and judges will attempt to find precedent wherever possible, while civil law does not have precedent (court decisions take a binding, but not persuasive role).
Additionally, common law generally features an adversarial system (i.e. prosecution vs defense or plaintiff vs defendant). It originated in England and is sometimes called Anglo-American law. It is practiced in the US, Canada, former British colonies, India, Australia, and a couple of other places. Lawyers ask questions and demand evidence, while the judge acts as a referee. Some countries with common law have juries, but a lot of them do not.
By contrast, civil law generally features an inquisitorial system, where the judge is in charge of investigating, questioning witnesses. Civil law originated in Europe and most European countries use it (England being an exception). Judges, not lawyers, ask questions and demand evidence. Lawyers present arguments based on the evidence the court finds. In civil law, the law itself is the precedent, not the decision of judges.