[1] The scope of the novel, the model of which is the existing person, is protected as a copyrighted work under the Copyright Act

[2] The case holding that a work publicly announced under Article 25 of the Copyright Act is "a quotation consistent with fair practices within the reasonable scope"

[1] In the case of novels that have a model for the real object, the original copyright law protected is a creative expression form that explicitly expresses ideas, emotions by words, letters, sounds, colors, etc. The contents expressed, that is, ideas, emotions, such as ideas, theories, etc., cannot be a work as a matter of principle, even if they have originality and originality. Thus, the compilation part that introduced the electricity of the human object into a graphic structure is protected only in the form of expression strictly expressed outside. However, in the case of novels like the novel of novels, it is likely to be protected not only in the form of expression, but also in the form of stopy itself as well as in the form of expression.

[2] The case holding that the part cited from the original work constitutes a quotation in accordance with the fair practice in light of the following: (a) the part cited from the original work has the nature of its form of expression as well as its incidental nature by using supplementary documents, incidental documents, etc., and does not reach the extent to replace the market demand of the original work; (b) and (c) the original author tried to obtain prior understanding of the original author; and (c) the original author has knowingly known the source of the quotation and attempted to obtain prior consent of the author; and (d) the author has silented it for a long time

[1] Article 2 of the Copyright Act, / [2] Article 25 of the Copyright Act

[1]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Gong Han (Attorney Han-han, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Kim J-jin et al. (Law Firm Dongi, Attorneys Seo-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The petitioner's application is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant.

The respondent shall not produce and sell the books listed in the attached Table 1 list. The respondent shall keep the finished products, semi-finished products, printing films, etc. of the said books to the execution officer designated by the applicant.

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be explained in full view of the evidence Nos. 1 to 3, evidence Nos. 3-1 to 9, evidence Nos. 1 to 3, evidence Nos. 2, lawsuit Nos. 3, evidence Nos. 4, lawsuit Nos. 5, and lawsuit Nos. 6.

A. The applicant is the author of the books listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Nuclear Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Ethical Estical Estical Estical Est

B. Around November 1987, the applicant took a view that the deceased is a world physical artist who can serve as an example to Korean people. After finding out the deceased’s mother’s gambling outside of his/her application, he/she took a talk about the deceased’s family relationship, growth process, character, etc. from his/her mother, and took a 100 letter sent to his/her female from his/her female to his/her death after studying in the United States, and collected materials on the deceased’s name by visiting the Seoul National University, the National Library, the United States, etc., and then published the said book through an ordinary benefit of publication on November 10, 1989, and published the above book through a 5th day of July 10, 192, and then made a decision in accordance with the above part of the book.

C. This "Nuclear Embrymology" means (1) the process of the deceased's birth, family relations, academic background, his activities as a faculty member, the details of the deceased's death and the content that the U.S. intelligence division was involved in the deceased's activities; (2) on September 1974, the deceased visited Korea; and (3) on the part of the deceased's research institute, the President Park Jong-hee participated in the development of nuclear weapons; and (4) on the basis of the fact that the applicant was aware that the United States would intervene in the development of nuclear weapons after the death of the deceased, he visited the 5th nuclear arms at the above time (hereinafter "Embrymology of this case"); and (2) on the part of the deceased's nubalm for the purpose of the development of nuclear weapons at the time, the applicant visited the deceased's nubalm and the part of the deceased's nubalm for 17th nuclear interview and the part of the deceased's nubal.

D. Around November 1991, the respondent Kim Jin written and published the novel of the title "the location of fluium," which contains his own opinion on nuclear development of a pharmacological station, and thereafter read the 'nuclear material science Lee' as a model, and tried to remodel the novel of this case from November 1, 1992, and completed the novel of this case around July 1993, and published the above novel of this case through the respondent's meeting.

E. The novel of this case refers to the necessity of securing the nuclear sovereignty of the Korean people with a long distance based on the process of tracking the death of doctor's 'after using the deceased as the model of the deceased. The respondent Kim Jin-jin refers to a significant portion of the "Nuclear Egymology Egymology for the factual description of the deceased as follows. After completing the novel of this case, the respondent directly found the applicant around July 1993, before publishing the novel of this case, and requested the applicant to accept the novel of the "Nuclear Egymology Egymology Egymology" while citing some contents of the "Egymology Egymology Egymology Egymology" in the daily newspaper of this case. On October 10, 1994, the applicant sent the above respondent with plagiarism by content-certified mail, and he advertised the above respondent with plagiarism as the content-certified letter of plagiarism, and advertised on January 19, 194.

2. Determination as to the existence of a preserved right

A. Judgment on the petitioner's assertion

The Respondent Kim Jin-jin, without the consent of the Respondent, written the novel in this case by plagiarism the Respondent Lee Jin-jin's plagiarism, which is the core content of the Respondent Kim Jin-jin's Lee Jae-jin's Lee, without permission of the Claimant, and uses the Respondent's plagiarism as it is. The Respondent asserts that the Respondent published it and infringed the Respondent's copyright by publishing it (the Respondent asserts that the Respondent infringed the Respondent's copyright of the Claimant's work of the Claimant's work of the Claimant published on October 1, 1993, but it is clear in the Claimant's own assertion that the Respondent's publication was later published after the plagiarism, and there is no specific assertion or proof as to which part of the plagiarism was plagiarism).

First, in relation to the issue of whether the 'Nuclears Exemplary' is a work protected under the Copyright Act, the above books are deemed to fall under the creative expressions of ideas or emotions obtained by the applicant's own mental effort with respect to literature, science, or art, or at least the compilation works made by the applicant by collecting, classifying, selecting, and arranging materials with a certain policy or purpose, and are subject to copyright protection.

In regard to the scope of protection, the original copyright law protected is a creative expression form that specifically expresses ideas, emotions, letters, sounds, colors, etc., and the contents expressed, i.e., ideas and emotions, such as ideas or theories, cannot be a work in principle, even if they have originality and originality. Thus, in cases where the compilation portion of this case, which introduced the deceased's electricity as a graphic, is the same as the compilation portion of this case, among the 'Nucleariology', it is protected as a work only in the form of expression strictly expressed outside. However, in cases like the stones of novel, there is room for protection of the 'nucleariology' as an exception, and thus, in cases of the creation portion of this case, the applicant is subject to protection not only the form of expression, but also the 'nucleariology' as an stonation'.

Then, I will examine whether the respondent violated the copyright by using the applicant's work without permission.

① In full view of the description of No. 1-3 of the No. 1 of the No. 3 of the No. 3 of the No. 3 of the deceased's No. 5 of the No. 5 of the No. 5 of the deceased's testimony that the No. 1 of the No. 2 of the No. 2 of the No. 1 of the No. 2 of the No. 2 of the No. 3 of the present No. 2 of the present No. 1 of the No. 3 of the No. 2 of the present No. 3 of the present No. 2 of the present No. 3 of the present No. 3 of the present No. 2 of the present No. 3 of the present No. 3 of the present No. 2 of the present No. 3 of the present case, the content that the No. 2 of the No. 3 of the deceased's testimony was no dispute, and the content of the No. 2 of the No. 3 of the present case No. 3 of the deceased's. 1 of the No.

However, as to the portion of the novels in this case excluding the portion of the above Nos. 1 and the part of the second use, it is insufficient to vindicate that the above part of the novels in this case 4, Nos. 5-1 through 4, No. 5-9, No. 10, and No. 10, were infringed upon by plagiarism, and there is no other supporting materials. Rather, according to the above supporting materials, the remainder of the novels in this case is irrelevant to the story of the creative parts of this case, and it is proved that it is different from the editing part of this case, and it is proved that it is an independent creation of the Respondent Kim Jin-jin's original creation.

Thus, the applicant's assertion is justified to the extent that the first and second parts of the use of the case infringed the applicant's copyright.

B. Determination on the respondent's defense

Article 25 of the Copyright Act provides that "the works already made public may be quoted for news reports, criticism, education, research, etc., in conformity with fair practices within a reasonable scope." The above provision provides that "press news reports, criticism, education, and research" is an exemplary provision, which can be quoted for the purpose of presentation, explanation, supplement, and emphasizes, and the act of using the applicant's copyrighted works in the first and second utilization section of this case is quoted as "the act of using the applicant's copyrighted works in conformity with fair practices within a reasonable scope" under Article 25 of the Copyright Act, so the applicant's copyright infringement is exempted from liability.

Therefore, according to the above explanatory materials, the part cited by the plagiarism No. 1 in the No. 1 in this case is about 10 pages, 286 pages, 3 pages, and 10 pages, which were known by the Respondent No. 1 in the No. 9 of this case, and the Respondent No. 1 in the No. 9 of this case’s non-applicant No. 9 of this case’s plagiarism No. 9 of this case’s plagiarism No. 1 of this case’s plagiarism No. 1 of this case’s plagiarism No. 9 of this case’s plagiarism No. 1 of this case’s plagiarism No. 9 of this case’s plagiarism No. 1 of this case’s plagiarism No. 9 of this case’s No. 2 of this case’s plagiarism No. 9 of this case’s No. 1 of this case’s plagiarism No. 9 of this case’s No. 1 of this case’s plagiarism No. 9 of this case’

In light of the facts alleged above, the part 1 and the part 2 used in this case are used as material, incidental, supporting evidence, reference material, etc. of the novel of this case in its expression form and do not reach the extent of substituting the market demand of the original work, and thus constitutes the quotation of "Article 25 of the above Copyright Act within the reasonable scope". In addition, in order to clarify the source of the quotation and seek prior understanding of the applicant, the applicant tried to obtain prior understanding, and the applicant made silents for a considerable period of time even though he knows the cited facts, the infringement of the respondent's copyright is exempted, and therefore, the respondent's defense is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the application for provisional disposition of this case for the production of books and the prohibition of sale against the respondent on the ground that his copyright has been infringed is dismissed due to the lack of prima facie proof as to the existence of the preserved right, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Lee-ju (Presiding Judge)