On November 16, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around November 16, 2014, prepared a design in the shape of eyebrow and eyebrow with the text of “D”, which is an applied work created by the complainant E and has copyright; and (b) prepared a derivative work similar thereto without the consent of the above copyright owner; and (c) used it in the trade name, signboard, and interior of the above restaurant.

Accordingly, the defendant infringed the complainant's copyright.

2. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act provides that “work refers to a creative production that expresses human thoughts or emotions.” Inasmuch as creativity does not require complete originality, at least a certain work should not be imitated with others, and should include the expression of author’s own thoughts or emotions. Thus, any expression that can only be identical or similar even if leakage, i.e., an expression that does not reveal the creative personality of author’s work, cannot be deemed a creative production. Furthermore, when determining whether there exists substantial similarity between two works in order to determine whether the copyright has been infringed, it shall not be deemed that it is limited to those of creative expression, rather than the form of expression, and it shall not be deemed that there is new originality in the idea or appraisal itself, which is not the form of expression, and that it is not a “original expression,” which is legally admitted by the court as follows: (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do291, Feb. 10, 201).