[2] Whether the creativity can be recognized solely on the ground that the design level of a specific machine, one of the functional works, differs from each other according to the author (negative)

Article 4(1)8 of the former Copyright Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8101, Dec. 28, 2006; hereinafter the same) examples of copyrighted works, such as maps, drawings, design drawings, map, model and other diagrams. Such diagrams works are so-called functional works, the main purpose of which is to express skills or actual ideas rather than expression of artisticity, and there are many cases where the expression is restricted due to the function or actual idea to be expressed, or the general method, specification or function thereof in the field where the work is to be expressed, or the convenience in the users’ understanding, and thus, it is highly probable that the creative identity of the author is not revealed. However, in order to be protected by the Copyright Act, the functional work of the author does not appear in the creative identity of the author, and even if it is somewhat different from that of the author’s copyrighted work, it should be determined whether the author’s copyrighted work is identical to the author’s copyrighted work (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do965, Jan. 27, 2005).

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the drawings of this case where Defendant 1 published the drawings on the Internet homepage of the New Industry Co., Ltd. without permission of the victim Hyundai Exposure Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the victim’s modern explosion”), only as they are modified, and only as part of the company’s trade name was published on the Internet homepage of the New Industry Co., Ltd., the drawings of this case are product drawings such as de factoing, cable transplosion, 500 Tlobral disorder, which are produced by modern boms, and the structure, size, function, etc. of the above products are expressed in accordance with the general expression method and drawing method so that ordinary technicians in the pertinent technology can understand accurately, and even if they were prepared, there is little room for different expressions depending on the author’s drawing, even if there is no possibility of being expressed differently, it cannot be deemed as subject to protection of the former Copyright Act, and such circumstance does not change because it did not contain considerable time and effort to make preparation of the drawings of this case, and there is no violation of law as to the defendants.

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

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)