[1] The parts to be compared in determining the similarity of works in order to protect the copyright and protect the copyright infringement

[2] The case denying copyright infringement on the ground that a work of the copyright holder’s copyrighted work is not used without permission in the form of creative expression of a work of the copyright holder, although the work of the obscenity was written by using part of the basic principle or idea of the obscenity which was written in the work of the copyright holder

[1] The subject of copyright protection is a form of creative expression that specifically expresses ideas or emotions obtained by people's mental efforts with respect to learning and art in the form of expression, text, sound, color, etc., the contents expressed, namely, ideas or theories, etc., are not subject to copyright protection in principle even if they have originality and originality. Ultimately, the subject of copyright protection is limited to expressions that are not ideas, and the subject of copyright protection is limited to the individual portion that has shown the originality of the author. Therefore, in determining whether there is a substantial similarity between two copyrighted works in order to determine whether there is infringement of copyright, only the portion corresponding to the expression should be compared.

[2] The case holding that, in comparison with "the Respondent's 4th procedure of application's writing" and "the Respondent's 12-hour procedure", the Respondent's writing "the Respondent's 4th procedure of application' and the Respondent's 12-hour procedure of writing "the Respondent's 4th procedure of application" and "the Respondent's 4th procedure of writing "the Respondent's 12-hour procedure of original expression", the Respondent's expression of "the Respondent's 4th procedure of expression" cannot be seen as the Respondent's expression of "the Respondent's 4th procedure of expression" and "the Respondent's 4th procedure of expression" and "the Respondent's 12-hour procedure of expression" are not identical or similar to the Respondent's expression of "the Respondent's 4th procedure of expression", and it is clear that the Respondent's 4th procedure of expression can not be seen as substantially similar to the Respondent's expression of the 14th procedure of expression.

[1] Articles 2 and 10 of the Copyright Act / [2] Articles 2 and 10 of the Copyright Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Da3073, 3080 decided Jun. 8, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2002) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da1642 decided Aug. 13, 1991 (Gong1991, 233), Supreme Court Decision 96Da6264 decided Jun. 14, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2178)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Order 96Ra49 dated January 15, 1997

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. The subject of copyright protection is a creative expression form that specifically expresses ideas or emotions obtained by human mental efforts with respect to learning and art by words, letters, sound, color, etc., and the contents expressed, i.e., ideas or theories, etc. and their emotions themselves are not subject to copyright protection, in principle, even if they have originality and originality.

2. According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below rejected the applicant's writing [the Respondent's 12-hour reading method] and the Respondent's writing [the Respondent's 12-hour reading method] [the Respondent's 12-hour reading method] and the academic and theoretical contents written on the Respondent's [the Respondent's 4-hour reading method], i.e., the basic principles or ideas of the original reading method developed by the applicant [12-hour reading method] and the Respondent's 4-hour reading method's expression without permission, are not identical or similar to the Respondent's expression [the Respondent's 12-hour reading method's 12-hour reading method's 4-hour reading method's expression without permission, so it is hard to see that the Respondent's expression of "the Respondent's 12-hour reading method's expression is identical or similar to the Respondent's expression of the original 4-hour reading method's contents.

Ultimately, the subject of copyright protection is an expression that is not an idea but an expression that has the originality of an author. Thus, in order to determine whether there is a substantial similarity between two copyrighted works in order to determine whether a copyright has been infringed, only the portion corresponding to the expression should be prepared (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da3073, 3080, Jun. 8, 1993).

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)