[2] The standard for determining whether a certain work infringes on the right of reproduction of an existing work or the right to produce a derivative work

1. The subject of copyright protection is a creative expression form that specifically expresses ideas or emotions obtained by people's mental effort with respect to learning and art by speech, letter, sound, color, etc., and the contents expressed, that is, ideas or emotions such as ideas or theories, etc., are not subject to copyright protection in principle, even if they have originality and originality. Thus, in order to determine whether there is substantial similarity between two copyrighted works in order to determine whether a copyright has been infringed, the case or background, etc. typically accompanied by dealing with abstract types or subjects in novels, etc. shall not be protected under the Copyright Act as they belong to the area of ideas (Supreme Court Decision 9Da10813 Decided October 24, 200).

In addition, if another person's work is reproduced without permission, it shall be the infringement of the right of reproduction. In this case, even if the work is somewhat modified, increased or decreased, or modified without reproduction of the original form and even if it is somewhat modified, changed or modified, it shall be deemed as a reproduction if it is not a new creative nature. Meanwhile, in order to be protected as a derivative work under Article 5 (1) of the Copyright Act, it shall be based on the original work, but shall add a new creative nature by maintaining substantial similarity with the original work, and by adding a modification, increase, or decrease to the extent that it can be a new work under social norms. Thus, even if a certain work is somewhat used for an existing work, if it becomes a separate independent work without substantial similarity with the existing work, it shall not be deemed an infringement of the copyright of the existing work (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63409 Decided February 11, 2010).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below interpreted the Plaintiff's charge out of the books of this case as a boomer, which is an inevitable element for the construction of booming works of this case, because it is hard to recognize the historical booming point of view that it is hard to recognize the historical booming point of view that it is hard to recognize the historical booming point of view that it is hard to booming out of the booming point of view that it is hard to recognize the historical booming point of view that it is hard to booming out of the booming point of view that it is hard to recognize the historical booming point of view that it is hard to recognize the historical booming point of view that it is hard to recognize the historical booming point of view that it is hard to booming out of the booming point of view that it is hard to view the historical booming point of view that it is an expression of the new booming point of view.

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles on copyright infringement.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)