[1] Requirements for copyrighted works protected under the Copyright Act

[2] The case holding that the issue of entering the examination by substitute constitutes a work protected under the Copyright Act

[3] The standard for determining whether a fair practice is accepted within the reasonable scope under Article 25 of the Copyright Act

[1] A work protected under the Copyright Act shall be a creative production belonging to the scope of a literary, scientific, or artistic work. Here, a creative production means that the author's own work is not a beer and that the author's work does not have a pipe. Therefore, the level of the work is not necessary, but the minimum creativity is required to the extent that the work is worthy of protection under the Copyright Act. Thus, it is not easy for the author to recognize the minimum of creativity even if the work is in the form of a simple fishing gear or contract, etc. In addition, the contents of the abstract idea, scientific principles, and historical facts that are contained in the work cannot be said to have been created by the author. Thus, the copyright does not extend to the content of the abstract idea itself, but extend to only the detailed and specific expression that indicates its contents.

[2] The case holding that even if the questions of entering the examination are historical facts, the degree of awareness of natural and scientific principles, the ability to read a foreign language, etc., and there is a aspect of extracting or transforming certain parts of textbooks, reference books, and other teaching materials, if the questions were given to select excellent human resources, and the questions were given without cutting the remaining ones at the end of the high trial, and the minimum creativity is recognized in the expression of the questions given or the expression of the given questions within the set questions, it shall be deemed as a work protected under the Copyright Act.

[3] Article 25 of the Copyright Act provides that a work already made public may be quoted for news reports, criticism, education, research, etc., within a reasonable scope consistent with fair practices. Whether a work is made consistent with fair practices within a reasonable scope shall be determined by comprehensively considering the purpose of quotation, nature of the work, the contents and quantity of the quoted work, the method and form that contains the cited work, the general concept and demand for the original work, etc. In this case, it shall not be recognized as a non-profit use only, but it shall not be deemed as a non-profit use. However, the use for profit-making educational purpose, compared to the use for non-profit educational purpose, the scope of free use is considerably narrow.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act / [3] Article 25 of the Copyright Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 79Do1482 delivered on December 28, 1979 (Gong1980, 12505), Supreme Court Decision 93Da3073, 3080 delivered on June 8, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2002), Supreme Court Decision 96Da6264 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2178), Supreme Court Decision 97Ma30 delivered on September 29, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 3374) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 90Da8845 delivered on October 23, 199 (Gong190, 2382)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney abnormal Guil

Seoul District Court Decision 97No50 delivered on August 12, 1997

All appeals are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

A work protected under the Copyright Act shall be a creative production belonging to the scope of a literary, scientific, or artistic work (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act). Here, the term “original production” means that the author’s own work is not a pipe of the other’s work and that the author’s work has a minimum creativity. Therefore, even though it is not necessary to enhance the level of the work, the minimum creativity required to be protected under the Copyright Act to the extent that it is worth protection under the Copyright Act, and thus, it is not easy to recognize the same or similar creativeity even if it is leakage, such as a simple fishing gear or contract form. Furthermore, the content or scientific principle of an abstract idea contained in the work, and historical facts cannot be said to have been created by the author. Thus, copyright does not extend to the content of the abstract idea itself, and it shall be deemed that the copyright extends only to the detailed and specific expression (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da307380, Jun. 8, 193).

From this point of view, with respect to the entrance questions of university entrance examinations, such as the annual generation, consideration team, classical lecture, and sexual rupture, which came into force at the end of 193, the health class, the above entrance questions ask historical facts or the degree of awareness about natural and scientific principles, or the ability to read foreign language, and even if there are aspects that consist of extracting or modifying certain parts of textbooks, reference note, and other teaching materials, if the questions were written without cutting the remaining parts in order to select talented human resources and the question is recognized to be minimum creative in the expression of the questions or the expressions of the given questions or the expressions of the given answers, they do not interfere with the view of works protected under the Copyright Act.

According to the records, since it is apparent that the above university's main examination problem meets such requirements as a creative production, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to copyrighted works, as discussed in the judgment below that held to the same effect.

2. On the second and fourth grounds

According to the records, the president of each of the above universities can fully recognize the fact that the president of each of the above universities has lawfully concluded the contract to establish the right of publication on behalf of the president of the pertinent school juristic person, so there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, violation of the rules of evidence, and

3. On the third ground for appeal

In this paper, even if Defendant 1, the representative director of Defendant 2 Co., Ltd., cited the whole of the Korean language problems of each of the above universities in the production of the college entrance questions, including the whole of the Korean language problems of each of the above universities in the form of debate, English, and academic studies, the defendant's quoted works are for the educational purpose of the college entrance questions, and the ratio of the main examination problems of each of the above universities to the Korean language is 9.7%, 2.8%, 6.9%, 19.9%, 19.9%, 29.7%, 19.7%, 25%, 3%, 19.7%, 19.7%, 19.

Article 25 of the Copyright Act provides that a work already made public may be quoted for news reports, criticism, education, research, etc. in conformity with fair practices within a reasonable scope. The determination of whether a work conforms to fair practices within a reasonable scope shall be made by comprehensively considering the purpose of quotation, nature of the work, the contents and quantity quoted, the method and form that contains a stimulious work, the general concept of readers and the demand for the original work, etc. In this case, it shall not be recognized as a non-profit use only. However, the use for profit-making educational purpose, compared to the use for non-profit educational purpose, is considerably narrow in the scope of free use.

In this case, in order to make an inquiry about individual issues in the course of university entrance examination, Defendant 1, as part of his questions, did not accept the above university entrance examination problem, but flicked the answer questions and answers presented in the above university entrance examination problem, and thereby, the number of questions and answers presented in the above university entrance examination problem was considerably increased. In particular, as the school juristic person in the above university entrance examination problem as a whole included the main examination problem with copyright in the above university entrance examination problem, it is deemed that the general consumers' demand for the examination problem is considerably replaced. Thus, it cannot be deemed that such a acceptance is a acceptance consistent with the fair practice within the reasonable scope for education, and no one can be said to have reached the conclusion that no one has asserted copyright in relation to the university entrance examination issue. There is no reason to conclude all the arguments.

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

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)