[1] The degree of originality for a work protected under the Copyright Act

[2] Whether the secondary copyrighted work is a copyrighted work under the Copyright Act

[1] In order for a work to be protected under the Copyright Act, it shall be a creative production belonging to the scope of literary, scientific or artistic works. As such, creativity is required as a requirement, but creativity in this context is not a complete meaning, and it merely means that a certain work does not simply imitate another's work, but includes an original expression of author's own thoughts or emotions, and it is sufficient to meet such requirements to the extent that the work is given the characteristic as the author's own mental effort and that it can be distinguished from the existing works of other authors.

[2] Even if the injured party's author's work can be recognized as a subordinate work in the sense that it is based on the relationship with the original work, it is a separate issue that it constitutes copyright infringement in relation to the original author, and is protected as a secondary work under the Copyright Act.

[1] Article 2 of the Copyright Act / [2] Article 5 of the Copyright Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Byung-hoon

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 93No7139 delivered on July 6, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In order for a work to be protected under the Copyright Act, it shall be a creative production belonging to the scope of literary, scientific or artistic works (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act). As such, creativity is required as a requirement, but creativity here means that a work does not merely mean a complete originality, but merely means that a work contains an original idea or emotional expression of the author's own idea or emotional expression, rather than a mere reproduction of another work, and it is sufficient to meet such requirements to distinguish it from that of the author's existing works of other authors.

In comparison with the reading materials published by the existing laundry Business Association and the Seoul Kim Sung, and the laundry Management School, which are the joint authors of professors of Lee Jong-won, a part of the same and similar expressions can be distinguished from the previous other reporters from the facts, or in the overall composition or form of expression, the creativity can be recognized. Thus, the above "laundry Technology Opening theory" cannot be deemed as a copyrighted work under the Copyright Act, since it can be recognized that the work is subordinate to the original work, even if it falls under the second copyrighted work, it becomes a copyright infringement in relation to the original author, and it is protected as a second copyrighted work under the Copyright Act).

In the same purport, the court below held that the defendant's lawsuit against the court below constitutes an infringement of the right to copyrighted works and held the defendant as a violation of the Copyright Act is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to copyrighted works as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

2. In addition, according to the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the book-to-work "doctrine management and laundry technology for the life of the people" was written for education at schools, private teaching institutes, etc. under Article 23 (1) of the Copyright Act or that the defendant is an educational institution under Article 23 (2) of the Copyright Act, and there is no error in the violation of the rules of evidence or the lack of reason, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)