2016Na62405 Damages

Hague Design Corporation

A

Suwon District Court Decision 2015 Ghana245933 Decided June 23, 2016

January 12, 2017

January 26, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,166,00 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is a company that carries on the business of developing and selling documentary evidence. The Defendant posted several pictures used by the “HU award” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant documentary evidence”) developed by the Plaintiff on its website, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright. Therefore, the Defendant, as compensation for damages, should pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,160,000 corresponding to the royalty of the instant documentary evidence, and damages for delay.

B. Relevant legal principles

The Korean Copyright Act does not explicitly provide for the content of the work of copyrighted works or the protection of copyrighted works in a literary book, and the applied art works created with the main purpose of the practical function are protected as a work only in the case of works that fall under the scope of the art, because the work itself has an independent artistic characteristics or value, separate from the practical function, even though the aesthetic elements exist (Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5632 delivered on August 23, 1996).

Meanwhile, in the case of a documentary program, it constitutes a computer program rather than a simple data file, and the producer’s creative identity is recognized in the production of a documentary file, and the reproduction, transmission, and distribution of a documentary file as a computer program is protected as a copyrighted work. However, the use of a written draft, i.e., a result expressed using a written draft using a written format, does not constitute a copyright infringement unless the written draft itself constitutes a creative production (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do732, May 15, 2001).

C. Determination

In light of the above relevant legal principles, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed an act of reproduction, distribution, etc. of works prohibited under the Copyright Act by directly approaching the instant book program itself, only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-sung

Judge Senior Superintendent

Judges Kim Jeon-tae