[2] In a case where Defendant B, the representative director of Defendant A corporation, was indicted for violating the former Copyright Act by infringing on the right of the copyright holder of the original work, on the ground that Defendant B, who is the defendant Eul corporation, and the English summary of the original work, which is an English work, was provided by Byung to a foreign corporation Byung for a fee in Korean using the Internet, the case affirming the judgment below convicting the Defendants

[2] In a case where Defendant B, the representative director of Defendant A Co., Ltd., was prosecuted for violation of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 10807, Jun. 30, 201) on the ground that he provided a summary of the English summary of the original work, which is an English work, to a foreign corporation Byung for a fee through the Defendant Company’s Internet website, thereby infringing the Defendant’s copyright holder’s right to create derivative works, the Court affirmed the judgment below convicting the Defendants on the ground that: (a) the summary of the original work, which was written by Defendant A, constitutes a derivative work in substance similar to the original work; and (b) the Defendants received the opinion that the summary of the English summary is an independent work unrelated to the copyright of the original work; and (c) the Defendants received the opinions that the translation of the summary is deemed not to infringe the copyright of the original work; and (d) the Defendants did not have any intention to infringe on the Defendants’ copyright; or (e) the Defendants believed that their acts do not constitute an infringement on their copyright.

1. Article 5(1) of the Copyright Act provides that “a creative work produced by means of translation, arrangement, alteration, color, image production, etc. of an original work” is “a derivative work. In order to become a derivative work, a correction, increase or decrease shall be made based on the original work, but substantial similarity shall be maintained with the original work. Therefore, where a summary summary based on an original work, which is a literary work, becomes a new independent work that has no substantial similarity with the original work, it shall not be deemed infringement on the copyright holder’s right to create derivative works (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63409, Feb. 11, 201). Whether a summary has substantive similarity with the original work is not a summary, structure, main composition, etc. of the original work, and whether a summary maintains only a part of the original work that forms the original work, or is merely an abstract of the original work, and a combination or combination of the original works shall not be considered as an infringement on the right to create derivative works (see, in principle, 20).

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in accordance with the above legal principles, the court below's decision that the translation summary prepared by Defendant 1 on each sequence of crime set forth in the judgment of the court below constituted a derivative work as it is substantially similar to the original work is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the judgment on infringement of the right to produce derivative works or violation of the rules

2. Meanwhile, as alleged by the Defendants, the Defendants sought from the foreign company of this case, which summarized the contents of the original work in English on or around April 2008, and received the opinion that the summary in English of this case is an independent work unrelated to the copyright of the original work. On or around February 2009, the Defendants expressed to law firms that the summary in translation is deemed not to infringe the copyright of the original work and received the opinion that the summary in translation should not be deemed to have been infringed on the copyright of the original work, cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds for the Defendants to believe that there was no intention to infringe on the copyright, or that the act recorded in the facts charged of this case does not constitute infringement on the copyright.

The judgment of the court below on this purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to intentional or unlawful recognition as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)