The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4, in order to establish the infringement of the right of reproduction or the right of production of derivative works protected under the Copyright Act, it should be recognized that the work prepared based on the existing work claimed to have been infringed.

According to this, the relationship can be presumed if the possibility of access to the existing copyrighted works, and the similarity between the target copyrighted works and the existing copyrighted works is recognized, and in particular, if the target copyrighted works and the existing copyrighted works are prepared independently and the possibility of having reached the same result is recognized to be remarkably similar, the relationship can also be presumed based on such circumstance alone.

In addition, whether there is a substantial similarity between two copyrighted works or not, unlike the latter's judgment, the former's judgment can also be taken into account whether not only the expressions protected by the Copyright Act but also the expressions not protected by the Copyright Act are similar.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da44138, Mar. 29, 2007; 2012Da55068, May 16, 2014). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s work D (hereinafter “D”).

A few years have passed since the completion of transactions through the Internet site, as well as the fact that the work is widely known among the same-sex novel readers to the extent that the suspicion of plagiarism has already been raised by another author, D is bound to be limited to the original floor, but D has been actively exchanged between its members on the same-sex novel site such as N, and the defendant also has experience in writing the same-sex novel in N.