All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】 Supreme Court Decision 2024Da228661 Decided February 26, 2026 【Damages (Etc.)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Meaning of the term “creative nature” that constitutes a requirement for the term “work” stipulated in Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Copyright Act [2] A case where a “functional work” is recognized to have creative nature and thus can be protected as a work [3] In a case where Stock Company A, which developed and used a screen golf simulation system that reproduces various domestic and international golf clubs, included images reproducing the golf courses in the above system after entering into usage agreements with the owners of the golf clubs, and Foreign Company B, which designed the above golf courses, filed a lawsuit seeking damages, etc., arising from infringement of property rights in the golf course blueprints against Stock Company A, the case holding that even though the golf course design blueprints of Foreign Company B contain the creator’s independent expression and thus have room to be seen to possess creative individuality distinct from existing golf course designs, the lower court, which determined otherwise, erred and adversely affect the conclusion of judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine [4] Where there is a foreign element in legal relationships regarding to whom the initial ownership of copyright in a work made for hire is attributed, whether the employment relationship or other professional relationship that serves as the basis for the creation of such work is governed by the applicable law determined pursuant to the Private International Law of the forum (affirmative in principle) | |
