All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal ① “O” is merely data as a result of the experiment and thus cannot be recognized as copyright, and even if copyright is recognized, the victim K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) did not acquire copyright on May 8, 2008, and did not obtain copyright. The Defendants cannot be deemed to have reproduced the above content.

② “H patent application” is solely filed in the name of Defendant B and is irrelevant to Defendant A and C Company.

2. Determination

A. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act provides that a work shall be “a creative production that expresses human thoughts or emotions.” The term “originality” does not mean a complete originality, but merely means that a work does not simply imitate another’s work, but includes the expression of the author’s own ideas or emotions. To meet this requirement, it is sufficient that the work has a characteristic as a novel of the author’s own mental effort and that it can be distinguished from that of the other author’s existing works.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the term “O” means a report prepared by the general manager, M, etc. belonging to the victim company as part of a small and medium enterprise innovation development project undertaken by the victim company upon entrustment of the KHA, as part of a small and medium enterprise innovation development project conducted by the victim company. In order to develop an effective system for blocking salt by using waste concrete, the term “O” is based on the data experiment conducted under different conditions on used used as a medium-treatment technology, surface quality, etc. In order to develop an effective system for blocking salt by using waste concrete. This is a work that is given the character as a product of the author’s psychological effort, and it is reasonable to view the victim company as the author’s work. Therefore, this part of the Defendants on different premise.