logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.11.29 2016가단54083
손해배상(지)
Text

1. Defendant C’s KRW 5 million and, with respect to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum from August 6, 2014 to November 29, 2017, and the following.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, while operating the D architect office on October 2010, designed a coffee shop F (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s building”) located in Gangnam-si E (hereinafter “) and completed the said building on July 201.

B. Defendant B requested Defendant C to design “H” of the coffee shop in Scheon-si (hereinafter “Defendant building”) and completed the Defendant building on August 6, 2014 according to Defendant C’s design.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry in Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 3 (Evidence with a branch number shall include a branch number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. 1) The occurrence of liability for damages is a work protected under the Copyright Act, which is a work protected under the general theory of copyright, and creativeity is required, but this does not require complete originality, and if a certain work does not simply imitate another work, but indicates the author’s thoughts, emotions, etc. in its own expression method, it may be recognized as creative.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da32747 Decided July 14, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da70520, 70537 Decided August 30, 2012, etc.). However, functional works, such as architectural works, are often restricted by means of general expression methods, specifications or their usage or function in the field to which the function intended to express is or the actual idea is included, convenience of the users of copyrighted works, etc. As such, even if there exists a somewhat different difference between other buildings, such circumstance alone alone should be determined separately as to whether such functional originality of copyrighted works cannot be recognized, and whether the author’s creative identity has been revealed.

(Supreme Court Decision 2008Do29 Decided January 30, 2009). Accordingly, with respect to the functional elements to enhance residentiality, utility, etc., the elements of the company are relevant.

arrow