(a) The significance of a work subject to protection of copyright, and in case of a work specially belonging to the academic scope;

B. Part to be compared in determining the similarity of copyrighted works in order to determine the similarity of copyrighted works for the purpose of infringing copyright (=original expression)

(c) The case holding that the copyright infringement does not occur on the ground that the key-rass of the same content as those used in the lecture of copyright holder were used as an analysis methodology, and used in his own book on the ey-leters by using that theory, but did not be included in specific expressions;

A. A work protected under the Copyright Act is a creative expression of ideas or emotions obtained by people's mental efforts for learning and art, and therefore protected under the Copyright Act is a creative expression form that specifically expresses ideas, emotions by words, letters, sound, color, etc. In other words, the ideas and emotions of ideas or theories, etc., which are expressed, cannot be a work as a matter of principle, except in the case of novels, originality, and originality, and the author's moral right, author's property right, and the author's property right should not be protected under the Copyright Act, and in particular, in case of a work that falls within the academic scope, the academic content is common to all people and the free use of it should be allowed. Thus, the protection of the copyright is not an academic content that is not in a creative expression form.

B. Since the subject of copyright protection is an expression that is not an idea but an expression that has the originality of the author, it is limited to an individual part that has shown the originality of the author, in order to determine whether there is a substantial similarity between two copyrighted works in order to determine whether a copyright has been infringed, it constitutes an expression and ought to be compared only with an original part.

(c) The case holding that copyright infringement shall not be caused on the ground that the key-leters of the same content as those used in the lecture of copyright holder were used as an analysis methodology and used in their own book on the ey-leters by using that theory, but did not be included in specific expressions.

Articles 2 and 93 of the Copyright Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Do1482 delivered on December 28, 1979 (Gong1980, 12505) (Gong1990, 2382) b. Supreme Court Decision 91Da1642 delivered on October 23, 1990 (Gong1991, 2333)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

Shin Jin-hun

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na54789, 54796 decided Nov. 17, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the principal lawsuit

According to the records, the court below rejected no evidence that there is no evidence to acknowledge the ground that Gap evidence No. 3 (Plazhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

In addition, even if the defendant injured the plaintiff's reputation, it is true that the alleged facts are true and illegal in the case of the public interest only. However, even if the records are examined, it cannot be recognized that the defendant's above act is solely for the public interest, so the court below's disposition rejecting the defense of illegality rejection without any need to further examine other issues.

All the arguments on the merits are without merit.

2. As to the counterclaim

Works protected under the Copyright Act shall be creative expressions of ideas or emotions obtained by people's mental efforts with respect to learning and arts (see Supreme Court Decision 79Do1482, Dec. 28, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 90Meu8845, Oct. 23, 1990). Accordingly, the copyright law protects the form of creative expressions specifically expressed by ideas, emotions, letters, sound, color, etc., and the contents expressed, i.e., the ideas or emotions of ideas or theories, etc. are expressed, and the contents expressed are not, in principle, copyrighted works, except for the cases of originality, newness, stos, etc. of novels, and author's moral rights and property rights under the Copyright Act are not protected.

In particular, in the case of works that fall within the scope of science, the academic content is common to all people, and the free use should be allowed for anyone, so the protection of the copyright is not limited to the academic content that is not in the form of creative expression.

Ultimately, the subject of copyright protection is an expression that is not an idea, but an expression that has the originality of an author, so in order to determine whether there is a substantial similarity between two copyrighted works in order to determine whether a copyright has been infringed or not, it is an expression and it is necessary to prepare only the original part (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da1642 delivered on August 13, 191).

However, if the records and the facts established by the court below are examined in light of the above legal principles, among the contents asserted by the defendant that the defendant was stolen by the plaintiff in his lecture, each of the technical parts listed in Section 1-5 of Attached Table 4 of the court below's decision is merely a simple description of the fact that the characteristics and new drugs of hye and hye are recorded in hye fishing, or about the learning methods of hye, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant creative creation was difficult. This academic content belongs not to the expression area subject to copyright protection but to the area of idea that is not subject to copyright protection, so even if using the theory, it is not recognized as infringement of copyright unless it is included in the specific expression. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's work caused the plaintiff's specific expression of hye, and thus, there is no infringement of the defendant's copyright.

Next, each of the technical parts listed in Section 7-13 of the above attached Table 4-13 is a description of the sound classification of the words used in the words of the scare language and its transplantation by putting the vertical line on the line, and about the literary characteristics of the scare language, such as its name, amount, type and rules of license, and the general principles of Lys, etc. As such, unlike the literary works in which there are various expressions about the same facts, it is difficult to see that the above literary characteristics are in the form of expression in its nature, and it is widely used before the defendant's use. As such, the above parts in the defendant's lecture book cannot be deemed to be a creative expression. Since the words used in the explanation on the above parts cannot be deemed to be the subject of copyright protection, even if the plaintiff cites the contents similar to the defendant's lecture at his own bar, it cannot be said that the copyright infringement is not possible.

마지막으로 위 별지 4.의 제6항의 기술부분에 있어서 피고가 몇 개의 철자 {키-레터스(Key-letters)}로써 희랍어를 분석해 가는, 종래에 사용된 바 없는 방법론을 사용하면서, 예를 들어 희랍어의 1인칭 복수에는 반드시 m(희랍어로는 μ)이 있으므로 m(μ)은 1인칭의 키-레터스이고, 2인칭 복수의 키-레터스는 t(τ)이며, 중간태와 수동태의 키-레터스는 θ와 αι 라는 등으로 설명을 하고 있는바, 위 희랍어의 어미변화를 설명함에 있어 사용한 용어인 키-레터스(Key-letters)의 선택이나 분석내용의 기술방법에 독창성이 있는 것으로 보이고, 원고가 그의 저작물에서 희랍어의 분석방법론으로 사용한 키레터스 또한 피고의 그것과 거의 동일한 내용인 점도 인정된다 {이 점에 관하여 원심은, 원고가 사용한 키레터스는 기존의 ‘희랍어문법’에 관한 국내외 학술서의 분석방법을 원용하면서 변화하는 어미 중 기본적인 인칭어미, 특징적인 인칭어미로서 그 인칭, 수 등을 알 수 있는 특징적인 중요한 요소라는 일반적인 의미 즉, 키워드(Keyword)라는 의미로 사용하고 있으므로 피고의 위 키-레터스(Key-letters)와는 희랍어의 어미변화에 대한 표현방식을 달리한다고 하나, 이 부분의 판단은 잘못된 것으로 보인다}.

However, the method of analysis of k-Es used by the defendant using k-Es constitutes a literary and legal principle or rule even if it is creative, and it falls under the scope of idea that is not subject to protection but rather belongs to the domain of idea that is not subject to protection. Therefore, even if it is used in such theory, it does not constitute copyright infringement unless specific expressions are included. Thus, it cannot be said that the plaintiff suffered fright of the defendant's expression form as it is, in light of the contents of the plaintiff's author's book and the defendant's lecture book, it cannot be said that this part also constitutes copyright infringement.

In addition, according to the records, it is identical to the theory of the lawsuit that the plaintiff was convicted of a violation of the defendant's copyright in the related criminal cases of this case and the above judgment became final and conclusive. However, in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, it cannot be said that it is impossible to make a conclusion different from the above criminal judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu6075, May 9, 198; Supreme Court Decision 90Da8527, Feb. 8, 191).

Therefore, although the reasoning of the court below is somewhat insufficient or erroneous in its fact-finding and judgment, the conclusion that the plaintiff did not infringe the defendant's copyright is justifiable, and therefore, all arguments about counterclaims are without merit.

3. Therefore, the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)