[2] The case denying the work nature on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the creativity as a functional work in the case of apartment floor plan and arrangement drawing to the extent that the design drawing prepared by the construction company simply changes the drawing

Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the former Copyright Act (amended by Act No. 8101 of Dec. 28, 2006; hereinafter the same) provides that a work shall be “a creative production belonging to the scope of literary, academic or artistic works.” It does not mean a complete originality. It merely means an expression that a certain work is not simply copied with others, but includes an original idea or appraisal of the author. It cannot be deemed as a creative work that contains an expression that is identical or similar to that of the author, i.e., an expression that does not have to be disclosed in the creative identity of the work. Meanwhile, since Article 4(1)5 of the former Copyright Act does not stipulate that “construction works including buildings, architectural models and design drawings,” and Article 4(2)8 of the same Act provides that “a work that is subject to protection as an apartment building map, design map, model or work is not a mere functional expression that belongs to the original purpose of the author, etc. of the work, and thus, it shall not be deemed as a creative work.”

The court below held that the defendant is the representative director of Samsungdong, Seoul, and around July 2006, the defendant violated the copyright of the non-indicted, by entering the name of the defendant company in the apartment white paper and the apartment floor plan and arrangement drawing illegally reproduced the contents of the defendant company in the above office of Samsungdong, Seoul, without the permission of the non-indicted ○○ Planning representative, the copyright of the non-indicted. The defendant company, the representative director of the defendant company, violated the above construction on the defendant company's Internet homepage by publishing the defendant company's name in the apartment floor plan and arrangement drawing which illegally copied the contents of the defendant company. In light of the above construction-related laws and regulations, there are many parts of the apartment house's construction-related construction conditions already determined in accordance with the above construction-related laws and regulations, and each household area's exclusive use area has no choice but to be restricted in the selection of each household's exclusive use area at the time of construction-related benefits or a line with the above construction-related laws. In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to see that the defendant's construction-level and appearance of construction-related drawings.

In addition, the gist of the remaining grounds of appeal is nothing more than the purport of misunderstanding the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court, or it is merely the allegation that the lower court erred in its judgment on the premise of facts different from the facts charged in this case, and thus, it does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal

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

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)