[2] The case denying the creativity of a compilation work as a compilation work against a legal assistance pocket book in the form of a publication

[2] The case holding that although the legal affairs pocket book in the form of one pocket book appears to be easily found by the users of the pocket book, matters related to the legal affairs and matters necessary for the handling of affairs, such as lawsuits, etc., and its useful function is not a creative expression form, the above pocket book cannot be deemed to have a minimum originality required for compilation works immediately because it does not have such function in the above pocket book, and since the materials recorded in the above pocket book are stored in the data distributed by the related agencies or organizations or in the previous type of legal affairs or in the previous type of pocket book, anyone can easily seek such materials, and if anyone produces a pocket book for a person engaged in legal affairs, any person would be deemed to edit the pocket book by selecting materials identical or similar to those existing in the above pocket book, and the degree of heating of reference materials necessary for the organization, functions and legal affairs shown in the above pocket book is ordinarily executed in editing, and it cannot be seen as a creative character or arrangement of such materials.

(4) The court below determined that the Plaintiff’s book for 199 years (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s book”) contains ① judge, Ministry of Government Legislation, the Constitutional Court, prosecutor, court and prosecutor’s office, juvenile reformatory, organization of juvenile reformatory, and director’s office at two pages or 204; ② the telephone number of the court and the office of the Ministry of Justice or prosecutor’s office; the address and telephone number of the attorneys-at-law and the telephone number of each district court or branch court (the law firm, notary public, the address and telephone number of the joint law office; the number of the attorneys-at-law in the district and branch court or branch court are separately arranged; ③ the Plaintiff’s book for the same purpose as those of the Plaintiff’s book for each agency or branch court; ② the Plaintiff’s book for the purpose of which the Plaintiff’s use was easily recorded in the list; ③ the number and telephone number of each agency or branch office for each type of litigation; ③ the court and branch office; and ④ the standard for calculating the amount of litigation; and ④ the number and serial number of each part of each agency or check.

2. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

A. To be protected as a work, the compilation must be creative in the act of collecting, classifying, selecting, and arranging the subject matters with a certain policy or purpose (Supreme Court Decision 96Da6264 delivered on June 14, 1996). The creativity means that the work is not reproduced by the author's own work, and that the work has minimum originality. Thus, the level of the work must not be always high, but it must be minimum of the value to be protected under the Copyright Act, and even if short, if it is of such nature that cannot be the same or similar, it shall not be deemed that the work is creative (Supreme Court Decision 97Do227 delivered on November 25, 1997).

B. According to the above legal principles and records, although it seems that the user of the plaintiff's pocket book can easily find matters concerning the legal related institutions and organizations and matters necessary for the handling of affairs, such as lawsuits, etc., the useful function itself is not creative expression form. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiff's pocket book has a minimum originality required for compilation work immediately since it has such function in the plaintiff's pocket book. The data recorded in the plaintiff's pocket book are stored in the data distributed by the legal related institutions or organizations or in the previous type of law, etc. or in the previous type of pocket book, and anyone can easily seek such data, and if a person who produces a pocket book for a person engaged in legal affairs produces a pocket book in the same or similar form of data, anyone appears to edit the plaintiff's pocket book by selecting data identical with or similar to those of the plaintiff's pocket book. The degree of heating materials necessary for the organization, function and legal affairs mentioned in the plaintiff's pocket is ordinarily conducted in the method of editing, and it cannot be seen as the plaintiff's originality or arrangement of such data.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the creativity of compilation works, which judged otherwise that the plaintiff's pocket book is creative, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)