2...

From June 2012 to November 2014, the Plaintiff used the lecture materials made by the Plaintiff as the subject of “D” at each wife. The above lecture materials contain the English e-mail used by the Plaintiff at the time of export transaction (hereinafter “Plaintiff e-mail”).

On November 15, 2016, the Defendant published the book “E” (hereinafter referred to as “E”) as “E” (hereinafter referred to as “instant book”), and the said book includes the e-mail as indicated in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant e-mail”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 4 evidence (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In order to be protected under the Copyright Act as to whether the Plaintiff’s e-mail constitutes a work, it shall be a creative production belonging to the category of literary, academic or artistic works. As such, creativity is required as a requirement, and creativity in this context does not mean a complete originality, but merely means that a work does not simply imitate others, but includes the expression of the author’s own independent idea or emotions, and therefore, it is sufficient to distinguish the work from that of other authors’ existing works.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do446 Decided October 23, 2003, etc.). The Plaintiff’s e-mail selected and arranged necessary contents when the Plaintiff exchanged the transaction intent through the other party’s e-mail in electronic commerce, and expressed it in English. As such, it should be deemed that there is a creativity and originality to some extent in collecting, selecting, arranging, organizing, etc. the subject matter.