The case holding that the Korean auction information corresponds to compilation works protected by the Copyright Act;

The case holding that it cannot be seen as a work not protected under Article 7 of the Copyright Act, which constitutes an compilation work protected as an independent work, because the information of Korean auction is creative in the selection or arrangement of its subject matters.

Articles 6(1) and 7 of the Copyright Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Do1482 delivered on December 28, 1979 (Gong1980, 12505) Supreme Court Decision 92Ma1081 delivered on January 21, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1054) Supreme Court Decision 96Da6264 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2178)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Park Sung-deok

Seoul District Court Decision 96No2983 delivered on August 30, 1996

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the court below and the records, the "Korean auction information" of the victim's issuance of unauthorized reproductions is classified into auction case number, location, type, area, and minimum auction price based on the contents publicly announced in the court bulletin board or published in a daily newspaper. In addition, it can be seen that the major situation of the object that the victim's employees came to know through the records of auction directly perused by the victim's employees or the records of auction, completion date, tenant, lease relation, lease relation, amount of rent, occupancy date, appraisal value, and auction result, legal relation on the register is extracted and summary only necessary parts. Thus, the above Korean auction information constitutes a compilation work protected as an independent work because it is creative in the selection or arrangement of its location, and so long as the above Korean auction information is protected independently as the compilation work, it cannot be deemed as a work which is not protected under Article 7 of the Copyright Act. The judgment of the court below is justifiable, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to creativity, as pointed out in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)