Sting.comed (Kring.comed (Law Firm Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Oh Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

Ado Entertainment Co., Ltd. (LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

December 1, 2016

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Gahap56753 Decided October 30, 2015

1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim

The defendant shall not use, indirectly, a game using "(Internet address 1 omitted)" or "(Internet address 2 omitted)" under the name of "Kako" or for mobile services, directly or indirectly, to general users, or shall not advertise, advertise, reproduce, distribute, transmit or spread it. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff, the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the date of the first instance judgment to the day of full payment, and the amount calculated at the rate of 1,229,982,09 won per annum from April 1, 2015 to the day of suspending the defendant's act of providing the above game to general users.

Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Presumed factual basis

【Evidence-Related Class 1 through 8, 11 through 14, 68, B, Articles 21 through 24, 32, 33, 35, 38, 42 through 45, 48, 49, 52, 53, 57, 61, and 63 (including the branch numbers in case where there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) respectively, and the purport of the entire pleadings

(a) A party;

1) The Plaintiff is a corporation located in the territory of the Republic of Mata, which conducts the business of developing and providing games based on digital platforms, such as computers and mobile devices, as a member of the group holding company established around around 2002, which is a holding company, based on the digital platforms such as computers and mobile devices.

2) The Defendant is a domestic corporation established on February 20, 2006 for the purpose of the development and operation of online game sites, the development and distribution of online contents, etc.

B. The time of the Plaintiff’s game release

1) From September 2012, the Plaintiff started the development of a new game, along with “Dgital Tes Ltd.” (hereinafter “digital posters”), based on the “Pamping” game in the form of match-3-game (hereinafter “mat-3-game,” and a game designed to obtain points when specific days in the game are connected to three or more straight lines), which was launched around 2010. The Plaintiff started the development of a new game from September 2012 to April 2013, “(name 1 omitted) game” (hereinafter “Plaintiff Game”) game (name 1 omitted) (hereinafter “Plaintiff Game”) (hereinafter “the name of the game product”). After the Plaintiff’s game was released to the whole world via the PP platform, the mobile platform was set to be the mobile platform around January 2014, and the Plaintiff’s game was released to the Kao on June 1, 2014, respectively.

2) The Plaintiff Game will take the basic form of a set-3-game that connects a specific number of different days with three or more straight lines, wherein the number of different days is set to be set to the number of different days for each stage by obtaining scores of the pertinent number of different days. In such a case, if other days disappear, new rules shall be added to each stage of the game, such as the rule by which the value of scores of the other days is high, and where other days disappear, new rules shall be added to each stage of the game, and a specific obstacle that obstructs the achievement of the objective is added to any specific obstacle that obstructs the achievement of the objective, and at the same time, it is an enjoying game that is designed to provide and purchase an item that is designed to enable the provision of and help to produce other specific results. The detailed contents of screen composition and design, special rules, and beams composition, which are characterized in the Plaintiff Game, are as shown in Appendix 1.

C. The running of the defendant game;

1) Gendertein, a company established under the Hong Kong law, developed a crypt-3-game (name 2 omitted) game (name 2 omitted) (name 2 omitted of game product). (Name 2 omitted), around 2014, a game was sent out in the name of each cryp in the name of another cryp in the name of each cryp in the name of a cryp in the name of a foreign country with partitions under the name of the Republic of Korea prior to 2014.

2) On January 23, 2014, the Defendant entered into a mobile game license agreement with the Genderteian on the following: (a) the Defendant: (b) granted the Defendant a license to exclusively distribute (name 2 omitted) games local to the Korean market (name 2 omitted); and (c) the Defendant entered into a mobile game license agreement with the Defendant.

3) After that, on February 11, 2014, the Defendant sent a Korean version (name 2 omitted) game in the Korean language (hereinafter “Defendant Game”) on the (name 2 omitted) game, through the Internet address of “(Internet address 1 omitted)” and “(Internet address 2 omitted)” in the case of the Google PP.

4) The Defendant Game added new rules, such as rules, which make it possible for the Defendant Game to increase scores of neighboring other days while taking the basic form of a set-3-game, and added specific obstacles that interfere with the achievement of a specific objective, and an enjoying game that can remove items, and the detailed contents of the composition and design of the distinctive screen of the Defendant Game, special rules, and beams are as shown in the attached Table 2.

(d) a class or type of game similar to the original or the defendant game;

The name of a game that had already been presented before the release of the Plaintiff Game and is similar to that of the Plaintiff Game (name 3 omitted), (name 4 omitted), (name 5 omitted), (name 5 omitted), (name 6 omitted), (name 6 omitted), (name 7 omitted), (name 17 omitted) (name 17 January 17, 201), (name 8 omitted) (name 9 omitted), (name 9 omitted), (name 208), (name 13 omitted), and (name 208.11 omitted) on the game.

2. Issues of the instant case

A. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate (this safety defense)

B. Whether author's property right (right of reproduction, right of production of derivative work, right of public transmission) with respect to the plaintiff game was infringed

1) Whether the Plaintiff is the author’s economic right holder of the Plaintiff game

2) Whether the Plaintiff’s game and Defendant’s game are substantially similar

C. Whether the Plaintiff’s use of the Plaintiff’s outcomes without permission constitutes an unfair competition act or tort

3. The judgment of this Court

A. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate (this safety defense)

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: “The Articles of Incorporation of September 17, 2014” of the first instance judgment 7 pages 6 is “the Articles of Incorporation of September 11, 2014”; “The Defendant Game of this case” of the seventh to “Defendant Game”; and “the Defendant Game of this case” of the seventh to the “Defendant Game of this case,” except for the use of “the Defendant Game of this case” as “the judgment on the defense prior to the merits” of the first instance judgment 3 to 8 pages 11; therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Whether author's property right (right of reproduction, right of production of derivative work, right of public transmission) with respect to the plaintiff game was infringed

1) Whether the Plaintiff is the author’s economic right holder of the Plaintiff game

【Plaintiff’s Claim】

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's game was developed by digital posters, etc., and the plaintiff was transferred with the author's property right on the plaintiff's game by digital posters, etc.

[Judgment]

The court's reasoning on this part is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff's game of this case is identical to the corresponding part of the nine to ten pages 5 through 10 in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where "the Plaintiff's game of this case" is used as "the Plaintiff's game of this case" as "the Plaintiff's game of this case"; and (b) thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2) Whether the Plaintiff’s game and Defendant’s game are substantially similar

【Plaintiff’s Claim】

The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows. The Plaintiff’s game is classified as follows: (a) the screen which begins in the Plaintiff’s game; (b) the screen which begins in the Plaintiff’s game; (c) the screen which begins in the game; and (d) how to design the screen after the end of the game (the composition and design of the screen); (c) how to constitute a special rule of the Republic of Korea (special rule); and (d) how to form a guard where the other date is located (deficial composition). In particular, how to choose and arrange individual rules in the game; and (e) how to combine with other rules, screen, game guide, etc., depending on the user’s experience, the selection, arrangement, and association of these rules and regulations are the expression protected under the Copyright Act as the result of the game developer’s creativity and the development of the copyright rights in the Plaintiff’s game prior to the Defendant’s game; and (e) how to provide the Plaintiff’s game with the right of reproduction or arrangement of the Plaintiff’s game work and its similarity.

[Dissenting of the Defendant]

The summary of the Defendant’s counterargument is as follows. The game rules and the combination thereof asserted by the Plaintiff as subject to copyright protection are merely ideas and cannot be subject to copyright protection. In addition, the idea regarding the game rules asserted by the Plaintiff as original in the Plaintiff’s game belongs to the so-called public domain, which has already been commercialized in the game market at the time of the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s game, and the specific method of expression of the said rules are also different between the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game. Meanwhile, the game screen structure of the Plaintiff’s game is not only a universal appearance in the preceding game, but also a difference between the specific form and the arrangement of special partitions, and there exists a difference between the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game in the aspect of visual design. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff’s game was partially used, there is no substantive similarity between the two.

[Judgment]

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act provides that a work shall be “a creative production that expresses human thoughts or emotions.” Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “a creative work” refers to a work that has originality and that does not require complete originality. “Creativity” refers to a work that does not require complete originality, but at least a certain work must not be imitated with others, and must include the author’s own ideas or emotions. Thus, any expression that does not have the same or similar creative identity of the author of the work, i.e., an expression that contains any expression that does not indicate the creative identity of the author of the work, cannot be deemed as a creative production (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do965, Jan. 27, 2005, etc.).

In addition, if another person's work is reproduced without permission, it shall be the infringement of the right of reproduction. In this case, even if the work is somewhat modified, increased or decreased, or modified without reproduction of the original form, and even if it is somewhat modified, changed, or modified, it shall be deemed as a reproduction if it is not a new creative nature. Meanwhile, in order to be protected as a derivative work under Article 5 (1) of the Copyright Act, it shall be based on the original work, but shall add a new creative nature by maintaining substantial similarity with the original work, and by adding a modification, increase, or decrease to the extent that it can be a new work under social norms. Thus, even if a certain work is somewhat used for an existing work, if it becomes a separate independent work without substantial similarity with the existing work, it shall not be deemed an infringement of the copyright of the existing work (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63409, Feb. 11, 2010)

In addition, the Copyright Act’s protection is a creative expression form that explicitly expresses human thoughts or emotions through speech, text, sound, color, etc., that is, ideas and emotions such as ideas or theories are not subject to the protection of copyright in principle, even if they have originality and originality. Thus, in determining whether there is substantial similarity between two copyrighted works in order to determine whether the right of reproduction or the right of production of derivative works has been infringed, only the form of creative expression should be prepared (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da46259, Nov. 26, 199; 2007Da354, May 28, 2009; 2009Da16742, Nov. 11, 2010).

Therefore, in a copyright infringement lawsuit as to a cinematographic work such as Plaintiff’s game, where the other party asserts that a reproduction or a derivative work was made with part of the previous copyrighted works, not as a whole, the part which is recognized as having the identity of the previous copyrighted works and Defendant’s copyrighted works, should first be recognized, and whether the same part constitutes a creative expression, and whether the other party’s relevant part is identical to that of the previous copyrighted works (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da70520, 70537, Aug. 30, 2012).

B) The characteristic rules of the Plaintiff’s game

(1) As a combination work or compilation work of various materials or materials, the game rules are only an abstract game, a tool that determines the concept or frequency of the game, and the development of the game, and they fall under the domain of ideas that do not fall under an independent protection chain work under the Copyright Act. As such, in the case of a game, the basic principles or ideas concerning the game, such as methods of playing the game, game rules, and the method of playing the game, shall not be protected under the Copyright Act. In addition, even if the idea is creative, it is not protected under the Copyright Act but, in principle, a public area where anyone can use the game, barring special circumstances, it cannot be prevented from developing another game on the basis of similar game rules. Therefore, as the main part of the game is a copyright infringement related to the game, such as a method of playing the game, a visual tool mobilized mobilized in the game, background of the game screen, the appearance of the game, and its form, etc., which cannot be seen as being considerably concentrating or concentrating the expression of the game, etc. on the basis of visual character used in the game.

In addition, unlike the RPG games (referring to the RPG games that play the role of a game user to postpone and enjoy character in the game) that form a certain kind of scam or scam similar to the novels in the course of the game proceeding, such a sofet game as a tame-3-game is basically the basic method of playing the objectives given in each stage. 2) The game as a gromatic game with the basic method of achieving the objectives given in each stage. The above rules are selected and arranged as a whole or in each stage of the game by arranging the above rules as a whole or in a successive manner. Although the above rules are realized in the game by the process and method of the game, it does not affect only the process or method of processing individual unscams, and thus, it cannot be seen that the external appearance of the game is different from the above three types of expression methods, and thus, it cannot be seen that the expression of the game is different from the above three types of expression of ideas.

Furthermore, both the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s game are in the basic form of a set-3-game, and the rules should be expressed on the smartphone screen. As such, it cannot be said that there are various ways to effectively express the said rules due to the above limitations. hereinafter the Plaintiff’s arguments are examined specifically by the game rules claimed by the Plaintiff.

Sheshes Basic Bobners and Additional Bos Rules

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임은 사용자가 타일 3개를 맞추어 제거할 경우 다음 1턴 동안 그 이웃 타일들에 보너스 점수를 부여하는 규칙(이하 ‘기본 보너스 규칙’이라 한다) 및 사용자가 타일 4개를 맞추어 제거할 경우에는 이웃 타일들에 보너스 점수를, 타일을 T자 또는 L자 모양으로 맞추었을 경우에는 해당 열과 행 전체에 보너스 점수를 각 부여하고, 타일을 일렬로 5개 맞추었을 경우 해당 캐릭터와 같은 종류의 캐릭터들을 모두 제거하면서 그 제거 수만큼 점수를 부여하는 규칙(이하 ‘추가 보너스 규칙’이라 한다)이 도입되어 있고, 아래 표와 같이 타일에 부여된 보너스 점수는 캐릭터의 우측 하단에 위치한 노란색의 원 안에 파란색 계통으로 연산기호(‘+’ 또는 ‘×’)와 숫자를 이용하여 표현하고 있는 점에서 유사하다.

(The following table omitted):

㈏ 그러나 위와 같은 유사점 중 기본 보너스 규칙과 추가 보너스 규칙 자체는 모두 아이디어의 범주에 속하여 저작권의 보호대상이 되지 않는다.

In addition, according to the premise facts as seen earlier, in cases where users already take four different days in the name of a third-3-game (name 3 omitted), (name 4 omitted), (name 5 omitted), (name 6 omitted), and (name 7 omitted) (title 1 through 5 omitted), special rules similar to the Plaintiff’s game in which Twits are given or Twits are given if five different days, have been introduced. In particular, (name 4 omitted), (name 5 omitted), (name 6 omitted) where five different points are commonly different from that of the Plaintiff’s game in all, the special rules are introduced if the user gains five different points, and if the user gains different points on the adjoining day, it would be very similar to that of the Plaintiff’s game in all other cases. However, it would be very similar to that of the Plaintiff’s game.

㈐ 한편 원고 게임과 피고 게임에서 기본 보너스 규칙과 추가 보너스 규칙이 표현된 형태를 보더라도, 연산 기호와 숫자를 사용하여 보너스 점수를 표시하는 방법은 캐릭터가 등장하는 스마트폰 게임에 있어서 통상 채택되는 방법에 불과하다고 보이고, 노란색과 파란색의 색상 선택 또한 독창적이라고 볼 수 없으며, 달리 한정된 게임 화면에서 이를 효과적으로 표현할 수 있는 다양한 표현 형태를 쉽게 상정하기도 어렵다.

【Madern Rules

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임은 각 단계별로 제시된 목표를 달성한 이후에도 남은 횟수만큼 게임을 계속 진행하여 보너스 점수를 받을 수 있도록 하고(이하 ‘히어로 모드’라 한다), 위 히어로 모드가 진행될 경우 다음 턴이 되어도 ‘기본 보너스 규칙’ 또는 ‘추가 보너스 규칙’에 따라 부여된 점수가 사라지지 않는 규칙(이하 ‘히어로 모드 규칙’이라 한다)이 사용되고 있으며, 히어로 모드에 있을 경우 기존의 화면에 반짝임 효과가 추가되는 점에서 유사하다.

㈏ 그러나 위와 같은 유사점 중 히어로 모드 규칙 자체는 아이디어의 범주에 속하여 저작권의 보호대상이 되지 않는다.

In addition, according to the premise facts as seen earlier, in the case of each value-3-game (name 6 omitted), which was launched before the Plaintiff’s game (name 6 omitted) (attached Form 3(4), a specific level has introduced rules to continuously proceed with the game as much as the remaining number of times even if the same goal as the Plaintiff’s game has been achieved, and in the case of each value-3-game (name 7 omitted) (attached Form 3(5) that was launched before the Plaintiff’s game, a special day is granted as much as the remaining number of times when the goal has been achieved, and a similar rule has been introduced when the goal has been automatically removed in accordance with the effects of each special day, and the points that the points that the points that were assigned pursuant to the Boner rule as seen earlier have already been carried out are to be decided by the nature of the word that the user would obtain the Boner points.

㈐ 한편 원고 게임과 피고 게임은 모두 반짝임 효과를 통하여 히어로 모드를 표현하고 있으나, 우선 반짝임 효과는 그 자체가 게임화면에서 많이 사용되는 표현형태일 뿐만 아니라, 히어로 모드의 경우 목표를 달성한 후에도 점수를 추가할 수 있도록 게임을 계속 진행하여야 하므로 일단 기존의 게임화면에 큰 변형을 줄 수는 없다는 한계를 가지는바, 이와 같은 설정 하에서 달리 히어로 모드를 표현할 수 있는 효과적이고 다양한 방법이 있다고 보기는 어렵다. 더군다나 아래 표와 같이 히어로 모드의 경우 원고 게임은 파란색 계통의 타일을 그대로 사용하고 있는 반면, 피고 게임의 경우 그 타일이 노란색 계통의 타일로 바뀌므로 그 분위기가 달라질 뿐만 아니라, 원고 게임의 반짝임 효과는 십자 무늬와 작은 원형 점의 조합으로 이루어진 반면, 피고 게임의 반짝임 효과는 ‘ ’와 같은 무늬로 이루어져 있어서 반짝임 효과의 세부적인 표현에 있어서도 차이가 존재한다.

(The following table omitted):

x Sponse Rules

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임은 모두 제거된 타일의 수만큼 악당을 공격하여 에너지를 감소하게 하는 레벨(이하 ‘전투 레벨’이라 한다)이 설정되어 악당의 에너지를 모두 감소시키면 히어로 모드 없이 해당 레벨이 종료되는 규칙(이하 ‘전투 레벨 규칙’이라 한다)이 사용되고 있고, 이때 악당은 화면의 오른쪽 상단에 고정되어 표현되는 점, 전투 레벨이 시작되기 전에 게임상 화폐를 사용하여 미리 3개의 난이도 중에서 선택을 할 수 있는 점에서 유사하다.

㈏ 그런데 위와 같은 전투 레벨 규칙 자체 및 사용자가 전투 레벨이 시작되기 전에 게임상 화폐를 사용하여 미리 난이도를 선택할 수 있는 점은 모두 아이디어의 범주에 속하여 저작권의 보호대상이 되지 않는다.

In addition, according to the above premise facts, there is a combat level that leads to the reduction of energy by attacking malicious parties on other days which have already been removed (name 8 omitted, (name 9 omitted), (name 10 omitted), and (name 11 omitted) of various levels-3-games (name 8 omitted), (name 9 omitted), (name 10 omitted), as shown in [name 8 omitted) and (name 9 omitted] of [name 8 omitted] of game products and (name 9 omitted] of game products, it should be moved to the left and right of the malicious party to remove the other days located above the malicious party, and (name 11 omitted of game products) in the case of (name 11 omitted), but it is nothing more than a small difference, and if the above rules are simplified, it would be possible to draw a combat level rule such as the Plaintiff Game. Moreover, allowing users to choose by using currency due to difficulty constitutes a method ordinarily used in other games that are ordinarily used in many days prior to the withdrawal of the Plaintiff game.

㈐ 한편 ‘전투레벨 규칙’의 경우 이를 구현하기 위해서는 일정 종류의 타일의 목표량을 제시하는 일반 레벨과는 달리, 지정된 공격 대상[원고 게임의 경우 보라색 너구리 캐릭터(○○○), 피고 게임의 경우 원시인 캐릭터(△△△△)]에 대항하는 설정을 갖춤과 동시에 매치-3-게임의 형식을 유지해야 하는데, 이와 같은 설정 하에서는 게임 이용자가 맞춘 타일로 악당 캐릭터를 공격하는 방법으로 표현하는 것이 가장 이해하기 쉽고 일반적인 방법이라 할 것이고, 그 이외에 ‘전투레벨 규칙’을 다양하게 표현하기 어려운 것으로 보인다. 특히 악당을 공격하는 설정을 취한 이상 악당의 에너지가 모두 소진되어 목표를 달성했다면 당연히 그 이후에 ‘히어로 모드’를 유지할 필요가 없다는 점에서, ‘전투레벨 규칙’에서 원고 게임이 히어로 모드를 채택하지 아니한 것이 개성적이고 창의적인 표현에 해당한다고 보기도 어렵다. 또한 원고 게임과 피고 게임의 전투 레벨은 모두 악당을 화면의 오른쪽 상단에 고정하여 표현하고 있으나, 아래 표와 같이 원고 게임의 경우 너구리의 모습을 한 악당이 상단 안내 바 안쪽에 위치하고 있는 반면, 피고 게임의 경우 원시인의 모습을 한 악당이 게임 보드의 위쪽 모서리를 딛고 서 있는 것으로 표현하고 있어서 그 구체적인 표현에도 차이가 있다.

(The following table omitted):

(v)the rules of disclosure of the source;

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임 모두 아래 표와 같이 타일 3개를 맞추면 상위 단계의 타일로 변화하고, 이러한 변화 과정을 3번 또는 4번 거쳐야 제거할 수 있는 특수한 타일을 제시하고 있고, 그중 3단계 특수 타일의 경우는 ‘알 → 가운데가 가로로 깨지면서 그 사이에서 밖을 내다보는 아기 동물 → 부화된 동물’의 형태로 변화하고, 4단계의 경우는 ‘풀 위에 있는 알 → 알 → 가운데가 가로로 깨지면서 그 사이에서 밖을 내다보는 아기 동물 → 부화된 동물’의 형태로 변화하는 규칙(이하 ‘알 모으기 규칙’이라 한다)이 사용되고 있는 점에서 유사하다.

(The following table omitted):

㈏ 그러나 위와 같은 알 모으기 규칙 자체는 아이디어에 해당하므로 저작권의 보호대상이 되지 않는다.

In addition, according to the above facts, the concept of a special different day which changes from the upper level of other days is already adopted when three different days are already different. Since both the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game are basically appearing, the above special different day also appeared at the last stage, and the most general and effective method among the methods of step-by-step expression is expressed that the specific animal is infinite at the known stage. In addition, even though the Plaintiff’s game is infinite 3), the (name 13 omitted) which was sent before the Plaintiff’s game is infinite 13 omitted (attached Form 3(111), the changes in the special day connected with more than two different characters are described as follows.

(The following table omitted):

㈐ 한편 원고 게임과 피고 게임에서 구체적으로 알 모으기 규칙에 사용된 특수 타일을 표현한 방법에 관하여 보건대, 통상 알이 부화하는 과정을 묘사할 경우 세로로 세워진 알의 중간 부분이 가로로 갈라지도록 한다는 점에서 위와 같은 표현은 전형적일 뿐만 아니라 달리 알이 부화되는 과정을 표현하는 방법이 다양하다고 볼 수 없다.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s game expressed the process of the change of a special day as the process of the shot, etc., while the Defendant’s game expressed it as the process of the shot, etc., while the Defendant’s game expressed it as the process of the shot or the shot, etc. of the shot. In addition, in the case of the 3-level special different days, the Plaintiff’s game shows it as the process of the shot or the shot, etc. of the shot, while the Plaintiff’s game is in the shape of the original form only in the part of the left upper part of the shot light and the left part of the shot light, the Defendant’s game is different from the fact that the shot light is kept in the shot light and the general form of the original form is distributed. In addition, in the case of the 4-level special different days, the Plaintiff’s game is in the shape of the shot light, and the lower part

⑹ 특수 칸 규칙

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임은 모두 아래 표와 같이, 타일을 맞추더라도 점수를 얻을 수 없고 함께 연결된 다른 타일들도 점수를 얻을 수 없게 하는 특수 캐릭터(뿌루퉁한 캐릭터), 해당 칸 위에 올라오는 타일들을 점수를 얻을 수 없는 타일로 바꾸는 기능을 하는 특수 칸(진흙탕으로 표현된 칸), 이와 반대로 해당 칸 위에 올라오는 타일들의 점수를 2배로 증가시키고 점수를 얻을 수 없는 특수 캐릭터가 올라오더라도 이를 일반 타일로 바꾸는 기능을 하는 특수 칸(잔디로 표현된 칸)을 이용하는 규칙(이하 ‘특수 칸 규칙’이라 한다)이 사용되고 있고, 다른 타일과 맞추더라도 점수를 얻을 수 없는 특수 캐릭터는 뿌루퉁한 표정을 짓고 있고 검은색 얼룩이 묻어 있는 점, 위 특수 캐릭터를 만드는 특수 칸은 보라색으로, 특수 캐릭터를 일반 타일로 변화시키고 보너스 점수를 부여하는 특수 칸을 초록색으로 각 표현하였다는 점에서 일부 유사성이 발견된다.

(The following table omitted):

㈏ 그러나 위와 같은 유사점 중 특수 칸 규칙 자체는 아이디어의 영역에 속하여 저작권의 보호대상이 되지 않는다.

In addition, according to the premise facts as seen earlier, the value-3-games (name 14 omitted) sent before the Plaintiff’s game (name 14 omitted) introduced the concept of character that cannot obtain points even if they are different, as well as the introduction of the concept of character that is unable to obtain, such as an attack, and the normal changes such as attack, making the character into an abnormal character, and recovering it after which it falls under the method ordinarily used in many general games as well as the emul-3-games. In full view of the above, the special partitions rule as above seems to have been able to think about how much the game developer combines the existing game rules, etc.

㈐ 한편 원고 게임과 피고 게임에서 구체적으로 특수 캐릭터와 특수 칸을 표현한 방법에 관하여 보면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임은 타일을 맞추더라도 점수를 획득할 수 없는 특수 캐릭터를 ‘뿌루퉁한 캐릭터 표정’과 ‘얼룩’ 부분을 이용하여 표현하고 있는데, 매치-3-게임에서는 캐릭터의 기본 형태는 유지하되 그중 일부만을 변경함으로써 특수 캐릭터임을 표현해야 하는바, 이와 같은 한계 내에서는 통상 캐릭터의 표정을 변형하는 방법을 쉽게 생각할 수 있을 것이고, 그 효과에 비추어 뿌루퉁하거나 화난 표정과 같이 부정적인 표정으로 표현되는 것이 자연스럽다 할 것이며, 그 외에 많은 다양한 방법이 있다고 보기는 어렵다.

In addition, in the case of a special column creating a special character, there is an example using a yellow negative image in other games (the name of the game product is used as a negative image in practice). In the case of a yellow color, it is a color mixed with a yellow and yellow color, which is widely used for a negative image expression, such as a slick, slick, slick, or addiction, so it is difficult to see that it is practically similar merely because it is a black light that makes it impossible to obtain points.

In addition, in the special partitions that restores the special character to the general day and grant the license points, both the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game are expressed in green. In light of the fact that the background of the Plaintiff’s game is a farm and the background of the Defendant’s game is forest speed, it seems that the idea that the Defendant’s game uses a green with positive and positive meaning is relatively difficult. Furthermore, in the case of the Plaintiff’s game, the above special square is expressed in the form of a swimming, while the above special square is expressed in the form of a swimming, the broad leaves are expressed in the case of the Defendant’s game, and there is a difference in the detailed method of expression.

⑺ 양동이 규칙(피고 게임 : 그루터기 규칙)

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임은 모두 아래 표와 같이 특수한 타일 주위에서 타일들을 맞추면 해당 특수 타일이 특정 캐릭터를 배출할 수 있는 단계로 한 단계씩 성숙하여 가고, 주위에서 타일들이 3번 맞추어 지면 완전히 성숙된 특수 타일에서 특정 캐릭터 4개가 나와 게임 보드에 무작위로 배치되는 규칙(이하 ‘양동이 규칙’이라 하다)을 도입하고 있는 점에서 유사하다.

(The following table omitted):

㈏ 그러나 위와 같은 양동이 규칙 자체는 아이디어의 영역에 속하여 저작권의 보호대상이 되지 않는다.

In addition, according to the premise facts mentioned above, the concept of "the other day" removed when the other day comes to 3 times according to the other day's dancing is already introduced in 3-value-games (name 7 omitted) and (name 15 omitted), etc. (name 3-value-games) and (name 15 omitted). The rules of both sides of the plaintiff's game are already established in 3-value-games (name 7 omitted), and the rules of both sides of the plaintiff's game are placed in 4 characters instead of removing the other day if the other day comes to 3 times in 3, and it is merely a minor modification in its effect.

㈐ 한편 원고 게임과 피고 게임에서 양동이 규칙과 관련하여 사용된 특수 타일의 표현 방법에 관하여 보건대, 원고 게임은 특수 타일을 양동이의 모습으로 표현하여 주위에서 타일들이 맞추어질 때마다 양동이 속에 물이 점차 차오르는 것으로 성숙의 정도를 나타내고 있는 반면, 피고 게임은 특수 타일을 나무 그루터기의 모습으로 표현하고 주위에서 타일들이 맞추어질 때마다 나무 그루터기 안에서 자라나는 버섯의 개수가 늘어나는 것으로 표현하고 있어 구체적인 표현 방법이 완전히 다르다. 또한 원고 게임의 경우 물방울 모양의 캐릭터가 배치되는 반면 피고 게임의 경우 버섯 모양의 캐릭터가 배치된다는 점에서도 차이점이 있다.

⑻ 씨앗과 물방울 규칙(피고 게임 : 엘프와 버섯 규칙)

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임은 모두 아래 표와 같이 특정한 캐릭터를 인접한 칸에 위치한 특수 타일과 자리바꿈하면, 그 특수 타일의 주위를 포함한 5칸이 특수 캐릭터(뿌루퉁한 캐릭터)를 일반 타일로 회복시키고 보너스 점수를 부여하는 특수 칸(잔디 칸)으로 변화하는 규칙(이하 ‘씨앗과 물방울 규칙’이라 한다)을 도입하고 있는 점에서 유사하다.

(The following table omitted):

㈏ 그러나 위와 같은 씨앗과 물방울 규칙 자체는 아이디어의 영역에 속하여 저작권의 보호대상이 되지 않는다.

In addition, according to the above premise facts, (name 4 omitted), (name 5 omitted), (name 6 omitted), and (name 6 omitted) of the game product (title 32, 3, and 4 of attached Table 3) introduced the effect that if a specific day is placed in a special place of day located in the adjacent partitions, all of the same coloring days are removed if a specific day is placed in the adjacent partitions, and the seeds and water fences of the plaintiff game will be transformed into special partitions instead of all of the existing regulations, and it is merely a minor alteration to its effect.

㈐ 한편 원고 게임과 피고 게임에서 씨앗과 물방울 규칙과 관련하여 사용된 특수 타일의 표현 방법에 관하여 보건대, 원고 게임은 특수 타일을 녹색과 갈색으로 이루어진 씨앗의 모습으로 표현하고 있는 반면, 피고 게임은 특수 타일을 노란색과 녹색으로 이루어진 요정의 모습으로 표현하고 있어 구체적인 표현 방법이 완전히 다르다. 또한 원고 게임의 특수 타일은 자리바꿈 전에는 눈을 동그랗게 뜨고 있다가 자리바꿈 후에는 눈을 감고 흡족한 표정을 하는 것으로 변하는 반면, 피고 게임의 특수 타일은 자리바꿈 전과 후에 아무런 변화가 없다는 점에서도 차이점이 있다.

⑼ 방해 규칙

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임은 모두 아래 표와 같이 방해 캐릭터가 2턴마다 무작위로 특정한 1종의 캐릭터를 제거하고, 캐릭터가 제거된 해당 칸은 다음 턴 동안 사용 불가능한 상태가 되며, 방해 캐릭터의 주변에서 타일을 맞추면 방해 캐릭터가 3턴 동안 캐릭터를 제거하지 못하는 규칙(이하 ‘방해 규칙’이라 한다)이 도입된 점, 방해 캐릭터가 캐릭터를 제거하는 것을 땅 속 또는 수풀에서 나와 정해진 1종의 캐릭터를 먹어치우는 방법으로 표현하고, 방해 캐릭터 주변에서 타일을 맞추면 방해 캐릭터가 기절하는 것으로 표현하고 있는 점에서 유사하다.

(The following table omitted):

㈏ 그러나 위와 같은 유사점 중 방해 규칙 자체 및 방해 캐릭터가 캐릭터를 제거하는 것을 땅속에서 나와 정해진 1종의 캐릭터를 먹어치우는 것으로, 방해 캐릭터가 활동을 중지하는 것을 기절하는 것으로 묘사하는 것 자체는 아이디어의 영역에 해당하여 저작권의 보호대상이 되지 않는다.

In addition, according to the premise facts mentioned above, (title 8 omitted) which was launched prior to the running of the Plaintiff’s game (title 3(6) (attached Form 6) has introduced the method of describing the concept of petle, which is a obstructive character that has already made the character a certain period of time unsatisfying, and the character of petle unsatisfying for a certain period of time. The rules of interference with the Plaintiff’s game are merely a modified method to remove the character instead of a situation in which the character is unsatisfy for a certain period of time under the above (title 8 omitted) rules.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s game is the basic character of crops related to the farm, and the Defendant’s game is the basic character of the animal related to the forest. In order to express the removal of such character, it seems that the appearance of a certain character that can drink (in the case of the Plaintiff’s game, tamper, and tamper in the case of the Defendant game) can be easily considered. Moreover, in order to interfere with the activities of the interfered character, it is difficult to consider other means due to the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s game, which is the knife-3-game, and it is also difficult to think that the character is temporarily locked to express that the character is to temporarily suspend the function of the character.

㈐ 한편 원고 게임과 피고 게임에서 방해 규칙과 관련한 구체적인 표현의 유사성에 관하여 보건대, 원고 게임의 경우 방해 캐릭터의 모습을 토끼로 묘사하고, 방해 캐릭터가 캐릭터를 제거하는 것을 토끼가 흙에서 위로 튀어나와 당근 캐릭터를 잡아먹는 형태로 표현하고 있는 반면, 피고 게임의 경우 방해 캐릭터의 모습을 늑대로 묘사하고, 방해 캐릭터가 캐릭터를 제거하는 것을 늑대가 수풀에서 위로 튀어나와 토끼를 잡아먹는 형태로 표현하고 있어서 그 표현형식이 전혀 다르다. 또한 원고 게임에서 당근 캐릭터는 방해 캐릭터인 토끼의 등장에도 아무런 변화가 없는 반면, 피고 게임에서 잡아먹히는 토끼 캐릭터는 방해 캐릭터인 늑대가 등장하면 겁에 질린 얼굴을 한다는 점에서도 차이점이 있다.

⑽ 정리

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s game rules asserted as a creative game are combined or modified based on the existing game rules, which were widely used in the above-3-games, and they fall under the domain of ideas, as well as the difference between the expression methods expressed in the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game, and it is difficult to view them as having been substantially similar.

C) The composition and design of the screen of the Plaintiff’s game and Defendant’s game

(i) Roloy;

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임의 로고는 모두 아래 표와 같이, 노란색 테두리 안에 파란색의 배경색을 배치하고 있는 점, 가운데에서 바깥쪽으로 빛이 뿜어져 나오는 것과 같은 모습인 점, 원고 게임과 피고 게임의 각 캐릭터들이 테두리 안쪽에서 바깥으로 튀어나오려는 듯한 형상을 취하고 있는 점에서 유사하다.

(The following table omitted):

㈏ 그러나 피고 게임의 로고에서 노란색 테두리를 채택한 것은 피고 게임이 카카오톡 플랫폼으로 출시되었기 때문에 카카오톡의 로고 띠를 가져온 것에 불과하고, 배경색을 파란색으로 하는 것이나 가운데에서 바깥쪽으로 빛이 뿜어져 나오는 것과 같은 모습은 아이디어의 범주에 속하는 것이다. 나아가 구체적인 표현형태를 비교해 보면, 원고 게임의 로고는 파란색의 격자무늬 뒤쪽에서 빛이 뿜어져 나오는 것과 같은 모습인 반면, 피고 게임의 로고는 파란색 배경의 중앙에 피고 게임의 캐릭터인 붉은색 여우가 크게 배치되어 있고 그 캐릭터의 뒤쪽에서 빛이 뿜어져 나오는 것과 같은 모습이어서 양자가 시각적으로 확연히 구별된다.

In addition, the arrangement of characters as if they want to protruding from the inside of theme is merely a simple idea, and even if the specific characters are placed, they seem to be placed in the upper part of the Plaintiff’s game with almost similar size in size and to go out from the shooting in which most characters are located. On the other hand, in the upper part of the Defendant’s game, there are a large number of red influences, which are the character of the Defendant’s game, at the center, and a smaller size character than that of red influence, and some of the characters of the Defendant’s game, which are surrounding red influence, were intended to go out of the outside, and there is a difference in the specific expression.

B. Sheed screen

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임의 시작 화면은 아래 표와 같이 두 화면 모두에 회색의 개와 유사한 형상의 동물이 혓바닥을 바깥으로 내밀고 웃고 있는 모습이 포함된 점에서 유사하다.

(The following table omitted):

㈏ 그러나 원고 게임의 시작 화면에 포함된 동물은 개로서 눈동자가 갈색이고 목에 붉은색과 흰색 무늬의 스카프를 매고 있는 반면, 피고 게임의 시작 화면에 포함된 동물은 늑대로서 몸 부분 털의 색깔은 회색이지만 입 부분 털의 색깔은 흰색이고, 눈동자가 푸른색이며 날카로운 이빨을 드러내고 있는 등 그 구체적인 표현이 전혀 다르다. 더군다나 원고 게임의 경우 위 회색 개는 화면의 왼쪽에 배치되어 있는 반면 피고 게임의 경우 회색 늑대는 화면의 중앙 하단에 배치되어 있어 그 구체적인 표현에 차이가 있다.

【Road map screen

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임의 맵 화면은 모두 아래 표와 같이 각 그 상단에 각종 정보를 보여 주는 안내 바(bar) 안에, 게임을 할 수 있는 횟수를 나타내는 붉은색의 하트 모양과 게임 화폐를 나타내는 열매 또는 보석 모양이 배치되어 있는 점, 위 안내 바 아래로 S자형 길 모양에 각 단계를 나타내는 표지인 두툼한 단추 형태인 노드가 배치되어 있는데, 그중 도달하지 않은 레벨의 노드는 회색의 웃지 않는 모습으로, 도달한 레벨의 노드는 파란색의 웃는 모습으로, ‘전투 레벨’의 노드는 보라색의 악당의 얼굴 모습으로 각 표현되어 있으며, 그 성취 정도에 따라 노드 위에 노란색 별을 1개에서 3개까지 부여하는 방법으로 표현하고 있는 점, 게임 이용자가 가장 마지막으로 도달한 레벨의 노드에는 주위에서 물결이 퍼져나가는 것과 같은 효과가 있고, 새로운 레벨에 도달하면 그 레벨의 노드 주위에서 하얀색 폭죽 효과가 나타난다는 점에서 유사한 측면이 있다.

(The following table omitted):

㈏ 그러나 아래 표와 같이 위 게임들과 같은 캐주얼 게임에 있어서 상단에 위와 같은 정보를 표시하는 바를 배치하고, 한정된 화면 안에 가능한 한 많은 단계를 표시할 수 있는 S자형 길 위에 노드를 두는 방식[아래 ‘(게임물 영문명칭 3 생략)' 게임]이나 도달한 레벨의 경우 파란색으로, 도달하지 아니한 레벨의 경우 회색으로 표시하는 방식[아래 ’(게임물 영문명칭 4 생략)‘ 게임 및 ’(게임물 영문명칭 5 생략)‘ 게임]은 원고 게임 이전에 출시된 다른 많은 게임에서 통상적으로 이용되는 표현형식에 해당한다.

(The following table omitted):

㈐ 나아가 구체적인 표현형태를 비교하여 보면, S자형 길모양의 경우 원고 게임은 굴곡 부분 후에 직선 부분이 화면과 평행하게 진행하고 직선과 직선 사이의 폭도 좁은 반면, 피고 게임의 경우 굴곡 부분 후에 직선 부분이 화면의 대각선으로 진행하고 직선과 직선 사이의 폭도 상대적으로 넓다. 한편 노드의 경우 아래 표와 같이 원고 게임은 일반 레벨의 경우 사과 모양을, 전투 레벨의 경우 너구리 모양을 하고 있는 반면, 피고 게임은 일반 레벨의 경우 별 모양을, 전투레벨의 경우 원시인의 얼굴 모양을 하고 있어서 양자가 시각적으로 확연히 구별된다. 또한 안내 바의 경우 남은 횟수를 하트 모양으로 표현한 부분은 유사성이 있으나, 이는 하트가 생명 또는 심장을 나타내는 것으로서 게임에서 남은 횟수를 표현할 때 통상적으로 사용되는 모양에 해당하고, 그 외에 게임 화폐의 경우는 그 모양과 색깔이 상이하다.

(The following table omitted):

In addition, in order to display the most recent level of labelling, it seems that the water can spread in the vicinity of the level, or that if it reaches the new level of labelling, it can be seen that it belongs to the category of idea and can easily think in the game. In the case of the plaintiff game, it can be distinguished from the shape of personal fireworks in the case of the plaintiff game in the specific form of expression. On the other hand, in the case of the defendant game, the firecracks are composed of a different shape of the firecracks, and if it consists of a different shape of the firecracks in the case of the defendant game, it is possible from both.

x. The screen in the game

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임의 게임 목표 안내 바는 아래 표와 같이 모두 기본적으로 노란색 계통의 바탕 위에 그보다 밝은 색의 직사각형 부분이 있고, 그 안에 안내문과 목표 캐릭터 및 그 숫자를 표시하고 있는 점에서 유사하다.

(The following table omitted):

However, this is not only a method of presenting goals ordinarily used in other games, but also a method of presenting goals. The guidance of the Plaintiff’s game consists of a square and physical pattern, while the guidance of the Defendant’s game consists of the two types of expressions, such as where the mother is in the corner shape and the background color is left down below the lower end by the wind, the target character or notice is different. The number indicated on the target character is also indicated below the target character in the case of the Plaintiff’s game, but the number indicated on the target character is also indicated below the target character, in the case of the Defendant’s game, and there is a difference in the specific expression form, such as the target character number indicated to the left side of the target character.

㈏ 또한 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임의 상단 안내 바는 모두 아래 표와 같이, 노란색 계통의 바탕 위에 이동 가능한 횟수 및 성취도를 나타내는 초록색 원형그래프와 별 모양이 표시되어 있고, 상단에 목표 캐릭터들의 숫자가 표시되어 있으며 목표가 달성되면 그 숫자가 초록색으로 변하고 초록색 체크 마크가 생기게 된다. 그리고 전투 레벨의 경우에는 원형그래프의 색깔이 초록색이 아닌 보라색으로 바뀌는 점에서 일부 유사하다.

(The following table omitted):

However, it is ordinarily used in the game to indicate the degree of achievement in the form of a round and a separate form. The color of a round is in the form of expression ordinarily used in the game, and it falls under the area of ideas if it is displayed in the general level, and in the case of a battle, it is shown differently in the blue. In addition, while the shape of a body is located in the upper part of the screen, the number of times it is possible to move and its original form, and each shape indicating the degree of achievement is located in both on the upper part of the screen, on the basis of the upper part of the game of the defendant, the color of the upper part of the screen is left, and only the number of times it is possible to move is located on the upper part of the screen, and in the case of the color display of the plaintiff, it is located on the upper part of the screen, and only in the case of the color display of the plaintiff, it is displayed on the front part of the screen, and there is no difference in the shape of the defendant body.

㈐ 또한 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임의 화면 하단의 안내 바 모두 아래 표와 같이, 전체적으로 노란색 바탕 위에 게임의 목적을 달성하는 데 도움을 주는 도구인 부스터들이 각각 다른 모양과 색깔로 동그란 아이콘 형태로 위치하고 있고, 아직 획득하지 못한 부스터의 경우 회색 바탕에 열쇠 구멍이 있는 흰색 자물쇠로 표현되어 있으며, 부스터의 각 기능 등이 일부 유사하고, 부스터가 추가로 제공될 때까지 남은 시간은 부스터 아이콘 위에 시계 바늘이 돌아가는 것처럼 표현된 점이 유사하다.

(The following table omitted):

However, the guidance of the Plaintiff’s game is a corner shape of the upper corner, while the entire form of the Defendant’s game was rectangular and solid, and its color was the strongest color. In addition, in the case of the Plaintiff’s game, the color of the posters is yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, and its shape is inserted, black, and animal. On the other hand, in the case of the Defendant’s game, the color is a green, yellow, yellow, yellow, red, and its shape is partly different, and its shape is both gathered, yellow, yellow, and storm, and it is clear that there is a visual difference in its appearance. In addition, it is difficult to view that the game user’s display in the lock shape is a typical expression type of the game, and it is difficult to view that the remaining time has increased until the posters are additionally provided, as it falls under the category of idea. In addition, it is difficult to view that both the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game were removed in light of both the characteristics of both the Plaintiff’s game and the Plaintiff’s game as a specific character.

(v)the character;

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임은 모두 아래 표와 같이 그 캐릭터들이 3차원 얼굴 형태를 가지고 있고 눈동자 색이 얼굴 색과 동일한 계열인 점, 게임 중간에 캐릭터별로 눈을 감았다가 뜨거나 혀를 내밀거나 좌우를 살피는 등 독특한 행동을 하는 점, 3개로 맞출 수 있는 캐릭터가 살짝 뛰어오르면서 힌트를 주는 점, 타일이 빈칸을 메우기 위해 위에서 내려오는 경우 마치 탄력 있는 고무공이 바닥에 떨어질 때처럼 찌그러졌다가 다시 살짝 튀어 오르는 점에서 유사하다.

(The following table omitted):

㈏ 그러나 다른 한편으로 원고 게임은 캐릭터의 모습을 농장과 관련된 채소나 과일, 물방울, 햇빛을 채택하고 있는 반면, 피고 게임은 숲과 관련된 동물, 버섯 등을 채택하고 있어서 그 외관 자체가 상이하다. 나아가 각 캐릭터의 눈동자의 색깔을 캐릭터의 기본적인 색깔과 동일한 계열의 색을 사용한다는 것은 제한된 캐릭터를 특징적으로 표현하기 위하여 서로 다른 색깔을 사용하고 있는 게임의 특성상 불가피한 방법이라 할 것이고, 캐릭터들이 기본적으로 얼굴 모양을 하고 있으므로 눈을 깜박이거나 좌우를 살피거나 혀를 내미는 방법으로 캐릭터를 묘사하는 것 역시 통상 생각할 수 있는 표현 방법에 해당한다. 나아가 힌트를 주는 방법의 경우 게임의 난이도 조절상 너무 쉽게 힌트를 제공할 수는 없는 점에 비추어 캐릭터가 살짝 뛰어오르는 방식으로 힌트를 주는 방식 역시 쉽게 생각할 수 있는 방법에 해당한다고 보이고, 위에서 아래로 타일이 내려오는 특성상 바닥에 닿으면 살짝 아래로 찌그러지는 모양을 하는 것도 자연스러운 것이어서 그것만으로 특징적인 표현이라고 하기 어렵다.

⑹ 특수 규칙 관련 화면

As seen earlier, there are some similar parts in the case of the screen relating to the special rules of the Plaintiff’s Game and the Defendant’s Game, but the method of expression of special rules between the Plaintiff’s Game and the Defendant’s Game is limited, or its specific method of expression or visual appearance is entirely different.

⑺ 게임 종료 후 화면

㈎ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임의 게임 종료 후 화면은 모두 아래 표와 같이 사용자가 특정 레벨에서 취득한 점수에 따라 이를 3개의 별로 평가하여 나타내는데, 별이 왼쪽부터 한 개씩 순서대로 나타나고 별이 나타날 때마다 주변에서 하얀 폭죽이 터지는 효과가 발생한다는 점에서 유사하다.

(The following table omitted):

㈏ 그러나 레벨의 성취도를 별의 개수로 표시하는 것은 게임에서 통상적으로 이용되는 표현형식이고, 별을 순서대로 하나씩 나타내고 별 주변에서 폭죽 터지는 효과를 발생시키는 것은 아이디어의 범주에 속할뿐더러 게임에서 쉽게 생각할 수 있는 방법에 해당한다고 보인다. 더군다나 원고 게임의 게임 종료 후 화면은 노란색으로 색깔이 동일한 별 3개를 연두색의 띠로 연결한 반면, 피고 게임의 게임 종료 후 화면은 붉은색, 보라색, 푸른색의 별 3개를 무지개 빛깔의 아치형 띠가 연결하여 그 외관에 시각적인 차이가 분명하다. 뿐만 아니라 원고 게임의 게임 종료 후 화면은 노란색 계통의 바탕 위에 별들을 표시하고 있는 반면, 피고 게임의 종료 후 화면의 경우 숲 속에 피고 게임의 캐릭터 중 하나인 붉은색 여우가 꽃다발을 안고 있고 그 위에 별들을 표시하고 있어 그 표현방법에 차이가 있다.

⑻ 정리

Therefore, the composition and design of the screen of the Plaintiff Game and the Defendant Game cannot be deemed as having been substantially similar.

D) The composition, etc. of a guard of the Plaintiff Game and the Defendant Game

⒧ 앞서 본 전제사실에 의하면, 원고 게임과 피고 게임의 일부 레벨의 보드 구성에 유사점이 발견되기는 한다.

However, in light of the size of limited screen pictures and regulations that must basically meet at least three identical days, etc., it seems that the composition of a game screen that can be used to form a stage by taking into account the difficulty of having different characteristics of each stage is similar in light of the following characteristics. Moreover, even in the case of the Plaintiff’s game which the issue is the Plaintiff’s reproduction of the Plaintiff’s game, the following table is deemed to be less than one already applied to the ticket-3-game that was launched before the Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s game, or the similar table is deemed to have been displayed in the form of a square type.

(The following table omitted):

In addition, even if the composition of the game guide is similar, the degree of difficulty can vary by different target number and frequency of movement, and there are some differences in the game of the plaintiff and the defendant game in the number of target days and the location of special partitions.

Therefore, considering these circumstances, even if the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game are partially similar, the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game are not substantially similar.

She also argued that the order of the introduction of the game rules and the first introduction level are the same or similar level, but the order of the introduction of the game rules not only falls under the category of ideas but also the entire level of the plaintiff's game and the defendant's game is not the same. Even if the plaintiff's assertion is based on the plaintiff's assertion, the level that the same game rules are introduced does not fully coincide with the level that the plaintiff's game and the defendant's game are not substantially similar.

E) Determination on other Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that it is not reasonable to determine whether the game rules are creative or an expression of idea by demolishing the composition and design of each screen, design, special rules, and universality as a whole of the rules, since the creativeity of the Plaintiff’s game should be determined as a whole by the selection, arrangement, and association of the rules, apart from visual design.

However, the combination and arrangement itself of the game rules belong to the domain of ideas, and the creative expression of a work is composed of various creative elements. Therefore, in determining whether the common expression part of the plaintiff's game and the defendant's game can be seen as an expression or whether they have the originality in the expression, it is reasonable to analyze the elements and examine whether they can be seen respectively as an expression or whether they have the originality in the expression. Furthermore, in determining the substantial similarity of a work, if it is judged by the overall concept and perception in determining the similarity of a work, the similarity of the overall concept and perception may arise not only from the expression protected as a copyright, but also from the expression protected as a copyright, and as a result, it would result in expanding the scope of protection of a copyright to the idea, which would result in the expansion of the scope of protection of a copyright. In this case, it is mainly caused by the perception that the plaintiff's game and the defendant's game are similar to the idea, which is part of the idea area. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion should not be accepted.

She also argues that the Plaintiff may choose the screen composition, design, special rules, and the universality of the Plaintiff-3-game such as the Plaintiff’s game, and there is no choice. The Defendant also asserts that, among these influent options, the Defendant’s service of the Defendant’s game that imitated the screen composition, design, special rules, and the universality of the Plaintiff’s game, and thus, it should be deemed as infringing the copyright of the Plaintiff’s game.

If there is no choice in the expression for expressing any idea, it shall not be deemed as copyright infringement even if the expression is common. However, if there is room for choice in the expression, it does not necessarily mean that it constitutes copyright infringement on the contrary, on the contrary that there is room for choice in the expression. Moreover, even if there is room for choice in terms of the composition and design of the game screen, the special rules of the game, the game game, and the game screen composition, etc., even though the expression actually prepared is used, if the expression actually prepared is used, it is difficult to view that the expression is common, and even if the idea as to the choice of expression is the same, if there is a difference in the specific expression itself, it is difficult to view that it constitutes copyright infringement.

However, as seen earlier, there exists a common point in the idea on the selection of expression, such as the composition and design of the screen and design of the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game, special rules, and universality composition. However, most of the screen composition and design of the Plaintiff’s game and the expressions of the design, special rules, and universality are used in the Plaintiff’s game, or there is no room for choice. Although the Plaintiff’s game rules are creative, it is deemed that there is a difference in the specific expressions of the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright on the Plaintiff’s game. The Plaintiff

F) Sub-decision

Therefore, even if there are some similar regulations on the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game, it does not constitute the subject of copyright protection in the case of the rules on the game, and as to the remaining part, the Defendant’s game does not have a substantial difference in the expression form by expressing character, etc. differently from the Plaintiff’s game, and thus, the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game are not substantially similar. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s development of the Defendant’s game infringed the right of reproduction and the right of production of derivative works concerning the Plaintiff’s game, and the Defendant’s service of the Defendant’s game to the Defendant’s game users cannot be deemed as infringing the right of public transmission regarding the Plaintiff’s game. The Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise

C. Whether the Plaintiff’s act of unfair competition or tort was established due to the Plaintiff’s act of using the outcome without permission

【Plaintiff’s Claim】

The plaintiff's act of providing the plaintiff's game with a new game rules and expression forms prior to the plaintiff's entry into the domestic market in full scale, constitutes an act of unfair competition under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act or an act of tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, which constitutes an act of unfair competition under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, or an act of infringing on the plaintiff's economic interest that the plaintiff may gain by using the plaintiff's game without permission, which is a result of a long experience, know-how, human and material resources input, which is a result of the plaintiff's act of using the plaintiff's game almost imitated and constructed by using it in an unlawful manner.

[Dissenting of the Defendant]

The summary of the Defendant’s reply is as follows. The game rules of the Plaintiff’s game are merely an idea that is not subject to protection under the Copyright Act, and their own means are merely the same or similar to the game rules or development methods of the Plaintiff’s game, or merely a combination or modification thereof, and do not constitute the outcome made by the Plaintiff’s considerable investment or effort. Furthermore, the rules of prior game in the game industry are located in the public domain, and thus, it is permissible to provide new game services by borrowing them. The expression elements realized in the Defendant’s game are different to the extent that they are not recognized as having substantial similarity with the Plaintiff’s game. In addition to the rules widely used in the existing game, the Defendant made many efforts to obtain seals from users, such as introducing new game rules and different operation methods, and thus, it does not constitute a tort against fair commercial practices or competition order. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s outcome does not constitute an unfair competition act or unfair competition act under Article 2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

[Judgment]

1) Article 750 of the Civil Act provides that “Any person who causes damage to another person due to an intentional or negligent act shall be liable to compensate for such damage.” In order to constitute a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, if a competitor’s considerable effort and investment infringe upon the interests of legal protection, not limited to cases where his/her rights are infringed, but where the interests of legal protection are infringed, such as copyright, etc., it should be interpreted that a tort is established. Therefore, in cases where a competitor uses the outcome constructed by his/her considerable effort and investment without permission for his/her own business in violation of business ethics or fair competition order, thereby gaining unjust profits by taking advantage of his/her effort and investment and infringing on the interests of legal protection of the competitor, it constitutes an illegal competition under the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Order 2008Ma1541, Aug. 25, 2010; Supreme Court Order 2010Da200444, Mar. 29, 2012).

In addition, the purpose of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is to maintain sound trade order (Article 1), and the legislation that adds the type of unfair competition act to each time when normative needs arise in rapidly changing trading circumstances such as the previous one. Accordingly, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act amended by Act No. 11963 on July 30, 2013 (the Unfair Competition Prevention Act was enforced from January 31, 2014) is a supplementary provision on the unfair competition act other than the unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(a) through (i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act in order to properly respond to the new and diverse types of unfair competition acts that appear due to the change of technology, and thus, it is necessary to include the new type of unfair competition act under Article 2 subparag. 1(j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act as one of the existing unfair competition acts in order to protect the company's economic interests as one of the unfair competition acts under Article 2 subparag. 1(j) of the Patent Act, while it is also necessary to expand the new type of unfair competition act under the new Copyright Act.

한편 특허법 등 지식재산권법은 타인의 투자나 노력으로 만들어진 성과를 이용하는 행위 중에서 타인의 지적 창작활동이나 영업상 신용에 편승하는 것을 방지하기 위하여 각종 지식재산권을 창설하고, 타인의 성과를 보호함과 아울러 그 한계를 설정하고 있다. 그러므로 그와 같은 지식재산권에 의한 보호의 대상이 되지 않는 타인의 성과를 이용하는 것은 본래 자유롭게 허용된다고 할 것이고(특히 저작권법에 있어 아이디어의 경우는 비록 그 아이디어가 독창적인 것이라고 하더라도 저작권법의 보호대상에 포함되지 않는 것으로서 누구나 이용 가능한 공공의 영역에 해당하는바, 이는 당해 아이디어가 자연법칙을 이용한 기술적 사상이면서 신규성과 진보성 등 일정한 요건을 갖춘 경우 심사를 통해 아이디어 자체를 보호하는 특허법 및 당해 아이디어가 비공지성, 경제적가치성, 비밀관리성 등의 요건을 갖추는 경우 영업비밀로서 보호하고 있는 부정경쟁방지법상의 영업비밀 보호제도와 차이가 있다), 또한 자유경쟁사회는 기업을 비롯한 모든 자의 경쟁참가기회에 대한 평등성 확보와 자기 행위의 결과에 대한 예측가능성(적법성의 한계에 대한 예측가능성을 의미한다)을 전제로 성립하는 것이므로 이와 같은 행위에 대한 법규범은 명확하여야 하고, 해석에 의하여 광범위한 법규범 창설기능이 있는 일반조항을 적용함에는 원칙적으로 신중하여야 한다. 더욱이 부정경쟁방지법 제15조 는 특허법, 실용신안법, 디자인보호법, 상표법, 저작권법 등과의 관계에서 보충적인 지위에 있음을 분명히 하고 주4) 있으므로 부정경쟁방지법 제2조 제1호 (차)목 은 위 지식재산권법에 모순·저촉되지 않는 한도 내에서만 지적 창작물을 보호할 수 있다.

Therefore, in principle, the use of another person’s outcomes that are not subject to protection of intellectual property rights is a free area. As such, a certain rationality is not recognized to regulate such use. Moreover, the illegality of using another person’s outcomes, i.e., the act of using another’s outcomes, is unreasonable in light of the principle of ensuring fair and free competition among competition among competition norms, which are common norms of society. Therefore, information, etc., which is another’s outcomes, which are not protected by the Intellectual Property Act, can be freely copied and used even if they have property value. However, in cases where there exist “special circumstances” that are not justified in light of fair trade order and free competition order, without protecting the use of another person’s outcomes, it is difficult to view that the use of another person’s outcomes would be insufficient to create such intellectual outcomes or to obtain information with customer attraction, etc., as being considerably contrary to the principle of fair and unfair competition order or unfair competition practice of the person who uses the other person’s outcomes, not to mention the use of the outcomes, to the extent that it intentionally interferes with the use of one’s’s outcomes or unfair competition.

2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances as to the instant case, taking into account the facts as seen earlier, and evidence Nos. 1, 9, 70 through 73, and evidence Nos. 39, 62, and 91, each of the items and videos No. 39, 62, and 91, which can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of pleadings as to the Plaintiff’s game industry, the Defendant’s act of creating and providing the Defendant’s game as the Plaintiff’s game industry in competition constitutes an unfair competition act or a fair competition order in light of the following facts and circumstances. However, even if the Defendant offered the Defendant’s game, which created the Plaintiff’s game industry by using the same game rules as the Plaintiff’s game industry, and offered it to the Defendant’s game users by using the same kind of game rules as the Plaintiff’s game industry’s game industry, it cannot be deemed as substantially similar to the Plaintiff’s game industry’s own idea and effort based on the Defendant’s independent idea, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes an unfair competition act or unfair competition order.

A) The Plaintiff’s game is a juice game in the form of chip-3-game and the rules asserted by the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s outcome are merely a game rule already used in the existing chip-3-game, or a modification or combination of such game rules. As seen earlier, the game rules are only a tool that determines the concept, frequency, and method of the game, and they constitute only a kind of idea that constitutes a game, and do not fall under an independent protective guest’s work under the Copyright Act, and it is reasonable to view that such game rules do not have exclusive right for a specific person, but can create a variety of games by freely using them. Accordingly, if the game is released, it cannot be prevented from developing another game on the grounds of similar rules of the game.

B) Furthermore, unlike other games, an expression of ideas called a game rule in a set-3-game is inevitable to be expressed in a very limited manner, and accordingly, a set-3-game is different from the external elements of the game, such as the appearance of the game, the type of a third day, the game road map, and character, but most of the basic game rules seem to take a large method.

C) Around January 2014, the Plaintiff discovered that (name 2 omitted) game service was rendered in Google and Amam, and requested the Plaintiff to suspend that service. The Defendant asserted that (name 2 omitted) game was infringed on the copyright of the Plaintiff’s game, as to (name 2 omitted) game from abroad (name 2 omitted) game, the Plaintiff asserted that (name 2 omitted) game was infringed on the Plaintiff’s game. At that time, the Plaintiff raised an issue against the Khode, rather than similarity with the Plaintiff’s game rules or development methods, appears to be related to the visual design of (name 2 omitted) character or the game screen’s visual design rather than to the Plaintiff’s game’s own identity. Moreover, there seems to have been no objective data to view that the Plaintiff raised an objection to or demanded the correction thereof. After consultation with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s correction of the name (name 2 omitted), namely, the name of the game product, and the Plaintiff’s correction of the name (name 2 omitted), and the Plaintiff’s correction of the Plaintiff’s game is also necessary (name 20.

D) On April 2013, 2013, prior to the release of the Plaintiff’s game, the Plaintiff’s game was launched into a PP platform around January 201, and was launched into a mobile platform around January 2014. The Defendant appears to have obtained the Plaintiff’s game provided to the general game users by means of general permission, and there are no objective data to deem that information, such as the Plaintiff’s game rules, was obtained by unlawful means.

E) As seen earlier, even if the idea of the Plaintiff’s game and the Defendant’s game rules is the same or similar, it is not possible to recognize the substantive similarity of two games because the overall form of the game, such as the form in which the game rules expressed, screen composition, design, etc., are different. In addition, the Defendant’s game includes a number of new elements that cannot be found in the Plaintiff’s game, such as original game rules, or game level and system, such as the Plaintiff’s game rules, such as the Plaintiff’s game rules, such as the Plaintiff’s game rules, and the Defendant’s game should be deemed not to directly imitate the Plaintiff’s game, but to have

F) The Defendant only provided Defendant’s game users with the Defendant’s game developed by using the Plaintiff’s game rules, etc., and there is no objective data suggesting that the Defendant lost the Plaintiff’s business or the credibility of the Plaintiff’s game.

G) Even if a creative work is not protected under the Copyright Act, if sufficient benefit was derived from prior to the granting of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, it would be reasonable to view such creative work as belonging to the public domain and allow competitors to freely use it. The time of the running of the Defendant Game would be February 11, 2014 where about 10 months elapsed from the time when the Plaintiff Game was first released (round April 2013), while the duration of the running of the previous online game using the computer is longer than the duration of the game development, it would be difficult to view the Plaintiff’s mobile game using the same 10 billion U.S. dollars or more for a short period of time, unlike the user’s loyalty and long-term use. Considering the characteristics of the Plaintiff’s game industry, which was relatively short-term of 00 million U.S. dollars or more, it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s profits from the Plaintiff’s game using the Plaintiff’s game platform as 100 billion U.S. dollars or more.

H) After the release of the Defendant Game, some users pointed out that the Plaintiff Game and the Defendant Game are similar. However, as seen earlier, insofar as it is difficult to view that the form of expression of the Defendant Game is similar to the expression form of the Plaintiff Game, it appears that part of the game rules, etc. were similar. Furthermore, there is no objective data suggesting that there was a confusion between the source of the Plaintiff Game and the Defendant Game, or that there was an intention to cause the Defendant to confuse the source of the Plaintiff Game and the Defendant Game users.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance partially different conclusions are unfair, the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed, and it

[Attachment]

Judges exhaustr fever (Presiding Judge)

1) In relation to the production and provision of online games, the so-called Blusing (referring to business activities, including the recruitment of members, gold, customer reception, marketing, etc., necessary in relation to the service or distribution of game products or incidental thereto) contract between the game producer and the defendant is deemed to have been concluded.

2) The term “grox game” means a small online game that complies with the MMORPG, a large-scale multi-user online game, and that can be easily enjoyed by anyone by means of a game method or by using simple and easy-to-competing hours.

3) A game in a manner similar to a set-3-game, or a game in a manner that replaces the location of other days in the case of a set-3-game, while a bowling game connects the same character with the other day in the case of a bowling game.

Article 15 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 11963, Jul. 30, 2013) expanded the scope of application to the Copyright Act by expanding the relationship with intellectual property rights law, such as the Patent Act. Article 15 (Relationship with other Acts) (1) of the Patent Act, the Utility Model Act, the Design Protection Act, the Trademark Act, the Quality Control of Agricultural and Fishery Products Act, or Article 2 through 6 and Article 18 (3) of the Copyright Act, if any, are different from