[1] Criteria to determine the substantial similarity of two works in order to determine whether a certain work infringes on the right of reproduction or the right of production of a derivative work of another person

[2] The case where the relationship is presumed to be based on the requirements for infringement of the right of reproduction under the Copyright Act

[3] In determining relations based on the requirements for infringement of the right of reproduction under the Copyright Act, whether the similarity of expressions protected under the Copyright Act as well as expressions not protected can be considered, unlike the determination of actual similarity (affirmative)

[1] Article 2 subparag. 1, subparag. 22, Articles 5, 16, 22, and 125 of the Copyright Act / [2] Articles 16 and 125 of the Copyright Act / [3] Articles 16 and 125 of the Copyright Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da46259 decided Nov. 26, 199 (Gong2000Sang, 28), Supreme Court Decision 2004Da18736 decided Jul. 8, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1310), Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63409 decided Feb. 11, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 49) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da35707 decided Dec. 13, 2007 (Gong2008Sang, 1) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da44138 decided Mar. 29, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 605)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2011Na1801, 1818 decided July 24, 2012

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

If another person’s work is reproduced without permission, it would be the infringement of the right of reproduction, and even if the work is somewhat modified, increased or decreased, or modified without reproduction in its original form, it should be viewed as a reproduction if the work has not been added to a new creative nature. In addition, the Copyright Act’s protection is a creative expression that explicitly expresses human thoughts or emotions through speech, text, sound, color, etc. Therefore, in order to determine whether there is substantial similarity between two copyrighted works in order to determine whether the right of reproduction or the right of reproduction of derivative work has been infringed, it shall be compared only with those of creative expression (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63409, Feb. 11, 2010, etc.). In addition, it is recognized that the existing copyrighted work has been prepared in accordance with the existing copyrighted work’s existing copyrighted work’s existing copyrighted work(see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da63409, Feb. 11, 201).

The lower court recognized that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s craft work was manufactured on the Plaintiff’s respective craft work from 1998 to 2004 on the ground that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) began with the flag art from 1998, much more than the Plaintiff’s flag craft work, and all the Plaintiff’s respective craft work was produced from 1999 to 2004, and the Defendant was frequently traveling with the Plaintiff while operating a wildized farm in the vicinity of the gold farm operated by the Plaintiff. In early 2007, the Plaintiff’s respective craft work was put in the Plaintiff’s house for the purpose of the Plaintiff’s house repair, and the Plaintiff’s respective craft work was made on the Plaintiff’s first and later, and the Plaintiff’s respective craft work was made on the Plaintiff’s creative craft work and the Plaintiff’s new craft work were made on the Plaintiff’s creative craft work and the Plaintiff’s new craft work type 1 to 37, respectively.

Examining the records in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the judgment of the court below is acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on determining the recognition of gender or actual similarity, or omitting necessary judgment.

2. As to the third ground for appeal

Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant could not be deemed to have damaged the reputation of the Defendant by the instant notices.

Upon examining records, the judgment of the court below is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of defamation.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)