The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether a work is a architectural work protected under the Copyright Act (ground of appeal No. 1) Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act requires creativity by stipulating the work as “a creative production that expresses human thoughts or emotions”.

Here, creativity does not require complete originality, but to be recognized as creative, at least, it should not be a simply imitated of others, and must contain its own independent expression of ideas or emotions.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do291 Decided February 10, 201; 2016Da227625 Decided May 15, 2018). Article 4(1)5 of the Copyright Act examples “a building construction model and design and other architectural works” as copyrighted works.

However, building works such as buildings are so-called functional works, and their expressions are often restricted according to the general method of expression in the architectural field, its use or function itself, convenience of the users of copyrighted works, etc.

Therefore, if a building merely expresses its function or practical idea according to such general expression methods, etc., it is difficult to recognize creativity. However, if the building contains its own expression of the creator of the idea or appraisal, and thus the creative identity of the creator appears, it can be recognized as creative, and therefore, it can be protected as a work.

We examine in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted.

The victim G’s building “H” (hereinafter referred to as “victim’s building”) designed and constructed in Gangnam-si F, has various features, such as the shape connected to the outer wall and roof slab, and the shape, degree, and degree, etc. connected to one line up to the slabs between the first floor and the second floor, slve’s protruding degree, slive angle, and both external walls, and the shape and degree, etc., of the creator’s own own.