Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Creativity in functional works under the Copyright Act
Supreme Court, June 24, 2021, 2017Da261981 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)[건축 설계도서의 저작물성 인정 여부 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What does the creativity required for a 'work' under Article 2(i) of the Copyright Act mean, and when may a functional work such as an architectural work or a graphic work be protected by copyright?
Holding
Creativity does not require originality in the fullest sense, but the work must at least not be a mere imitation of another's and must contain the author's own original expression of ideas or feelings. A functional work whose expression is confined by the conventional methods of the field, its use or function, or the convenience of its users shows only a functional or practical idea and is hard to treat as creative; where it does contain the author's own original expression and the author's creative individuality appears, it may be protected as a work. The design drawings here contained, at the least, the roof shape and the structures of the first-floor entrance and the corridor, and the drawings of architect C were made by applying only minor variations to the original CAD files of the drawings of architect B, so the court below was right to find infringement.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 기능적 저작물이 그와 같은 일반적인 표현방법 등에 따라 기능 또는 실용적인 사상을 나타내고 있을 뿐이라면 창작성을 인정하기 어렵지만, 사상이나 감정에 대한 창작자 자신의 독자적인 표현을 담고 있어 창작자의 창조적 개성이 나타나 있는 경우라면 창작성을 인정할 수 있으므로 저작물로서 보호를 받을 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, where a functional work merely expresses a function or a practical idea in accordance with such general methods of expression and the like, it is difficult to recognize originality, but where it contains the creator's own independent expression of ideas or emotions and thus the creator's creative individuality is revealed, originality may be recognized, and therefore the work may be protected as a work.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
적어도 어떠한 작품이 단순히 남의 것을 모방한 것이어서는 아니 되고 사상이나 감정에 대한 창작자 자신의 독자적인 표현을 담고 있어야 한다
Unofficial English translation
At a minimum, a given work must not merely imitate the work of another, and must contain the creator's own independent expression of ideas or emotions
Factors
- 단순히 남의 것을 모방한 것이어서는 아니 되고
- 사상이나 감정에 대한 창작자 자신의 독자적인 표현을 담고 있어야 한다
- 해당 분야에서의 일반적인 표현방법, 그 용도나 기능 자체, 저작물 이용자의 이용의 편의성 등에 의하여 그 표현이 제한되는 경우가 많다
- 창작자의 창조적 개성이 나타나 있는 경우라면 창작성을 인정할 수 있으므로 저작물로서 보호를 받을 수 있다
- 을의 설계도서 중 적어도 지붕 형태, 1층 출입문 및 회랑 형태의 구조는 을 자신의 독자적인 사상 또는 감정의 표현을 담고 있어
Unofficial English translation
• It must not merely imitate the work of another, and
• It must contain the creator's own independent expression of ideas or emotions
• There are many cases where the expression is limited by the general methods of expression in the relevant field, the use or function itself, the convenience of use by users of the work, and the like
• Where the creator's creative individuality is revealed, originality may be recognized, and therefore the work may be protected as a work
• Among architect B's design drawings, at least the structure of the roof form, the first-floor entrance door, and the corridor form contains B's own independent expression of ideas or emotions
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2020. 4. 29. 선고 2019도9601 판결(공2020상, 1046)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2019Do9601 decided April 29, 2020 (Gong 2020 Sang, 1046)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2009. 1. 30. 선고 2008도29 판결, 대법원 2020. 4. 29. 선고 2019도9601 판결(공2020상, 1046)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a design uses conventional elements but arranges them in a combination the architect chose, is that arrangement alone enough for the creative individuality of the author to appear?
A later Supreme Court decision setting out how far an expression may depart from the conventional methods of the field before creativity is found would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 2(i) or Article 4(1)(v) and (viii) of the Copyright Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a design uses conventional elements but arranges them in a combination the architect chose, is that arrangement alone enough for the creative individuality of the author to appear?” vs Independent “How should substantial similarity be assessed when architectural plans share both protected creative features and unprotected functional features?”
The primary asks whether an architect's choice of combination of conventional elements alone shows creative individuality, while the independent asks how to assess substantial similarity when protected and unprotected features coexist.
따라서 기능적 저작물이 그와 같은 일반적인 표현방법 등에 따라 기능 또는 실용적인 사상을 나타내고 있을 뿐이라면 창작성을 인정하기 어렵지만, 사상이나 감정에 대한 창작자 자신의 독자적인 표현을 담고 있어 창작자의 창조적 개성이 나타나 있는 경우라면 창작성을 인정할 수 있으므로 저작물로서 보호를 받을 수 있다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 24 August 2017 (2016Na2073109), held that the design drawings architect B made for the multi-household dwelling built by Company A contained, at the least, the roof shape and the structures of the first-floor entrance and the corridor, which bore B's own original expression, so that the drawings were a work showing B's creative individuality. It found that the drawings architect C prepared, used by Company A to build another building, were made by applying only minor variations to B's original CAD files and were substantially similar to B's drawings, and held Company A and C liable in damages for copyright infringement, fixing the amount under Article 126 of the Copyright Act.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the appellate reasons against the rules stated, including the standard of creativity for functional works, and the record, it held that the court below had not misread the law on protectability or on the calculation of damages for copyright infringement, nor exceeded the bounds of free evaluation by violating the rules of logic and experience. All the defendants' appeals were dismissed on the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A design whose expression is confined by the conventional methods of the field, its use or function, or the convenience of users, and which shows only a functional or practical idea.
- A work that is a mere imitation of another's, since the Court required at least the author's own original expression of ideas or feelings.
- A drawing that differs from the earlier drawings by more than minor variations to the original files, so that substantial similarity is not made out.
Record verification notes
Identify the elements said to bear the architect's own expression, as the court here pointed to the roof shape and the structures of the first-floor entrance and the corridor, and test each against the conventional methods of the field. Then compare the disputed drawing with the original CAD files of the earlier drawings, since the finding of substantial similarity rested on minor variations alone, and check how the amount was fixed under Article 126 of the Copyright Act.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 저작권법 제2조 제1호에서 정한 ‘저작물’의 요건인 ‘창작성’의 의미 및 건축저작물이나 도형저작물과 같은 이른바 기능적 저작물이 창작성이 인정되어 저작물로서 보호받을 수 있는 경우 [2] 갑 주식회사가 신축하는 다가구주택에 관하여 설계도서를 제작·교부한 건축사 을이, 위 주택 신축 후 갑 회사가 건축사 병이 제작·교부한 설계도서로 다른 건물을 신축하자, 갑 회사와 병을 상대로 그들이 을의 동의를 받지 아니한 채 을의 설계도서를 일부 수정하여 위 건물의 설계도서를 제작하였다며 저작권 침해로 인한 손해배상을 구한 사안에서, 을의 설계도서는 을의 창조적 개성이 드러나는 저작물에 해당하고, 병의 설계도서는 을의 설계도서와 실질적으로 유사하므로, 갑 회사와 병은 저작권 침해로 인한 손해배상책임을 진다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등 잘못이 없다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of "originality," a requirement for a "work" as provided in Article 2, subparagraph 1 of the Copyright Act, and cases where so-called functional works such as architectural works or graphic works may be protected as works upon recognition of originality [2] Architect B, who produced and delivered design drawings for a multi-family house newly constructed by corporation A, filed an action against corporation A and architect C seeking damages for copyright infringement, alleging that, after the house was newly constructed, when corporation A constructed another building using design drawings produced and delivered by architect C, corporation A and architect C produced the design drawings for the building by partially modifying B's design drawings without B's consent, in a case where the court below held that B's design drawings constitute a work in which B's creative individuality is revealed, that C's design drawings are substantially similar to B's design drawings, and therefore that corporation A and architect C are liable for damages for copyright infringement, a case in which it was held that there is no error such as misapprehension of legal principles in the determination of the court below
Summary of the holding
[1] 저작권법 제2조 제1호는 저작물을 ‘인간의 사상 또는 감정을 표현한 창작물’로 규정하여 창작성을 요구하고 있다. 여기서 창작성은 완전한 의미의 독창성을 요구하는 것은 아니라고 하더라도 창작성이 인정되려면 적어도 어떠한 작품이 단순히 남의 것을 모방한 것이어서는 아니 되고 사상이나 감정에 대한 창작자 자신의 독자적인 표현을 담고 있어야 한다. 저작권법은 제4조 제1항 제5호에서 ‘건축물·건축을 위한 모형 및 설계도서 그 밖의 건축저작물’을, 같은 항 제8호에서 ‘지도·도표·설계도·약도·모형 그 밖의 도형저작물’을 저작물로 예시하고 있다. 그런데 건축저작물이나 도형저작물은 이른바 기능적 저작물로서, 해당 분야에서의 일반적인 표현방법, 그 용도나 기능 자체, 저작물 이용자의 이용의 편의성 등에 의하여 그 표현이 제한되는 경우가 많다. 따라서 기능적 저작물이 그와 같은 일반적인 표현방법 등에 따라 기능 또는 실용적인 사상을 나타내고 있을 뿐이라면 창작성을 인정하기 어렵지만, 사상이나 감정에 대한 창작자 자신의 독자적인 표현을 담고 있어 창작자의 창조적 개성이 나타나 있는 경우라면 창작성을 인정할 수 있으므로 저작물로서 보호를 받을 수 있다. [2] 갑 주식회사가 신축하는 다가구주택에 관하여 설계도서를 제작·교부한 건축사 을이, 위 주택 신축 후 갑 회사가 건축사 병이 제작·교부한 설계도서로 다른 건물을 신축하자, 갑 회사와 병을 상대로 그들이 을의 동의를 받지 아니한 채 을의 설계도서를 일부 수정하여 위 건물의 설계도서를 제작하였다며 저작권 침해로 인한 손해배상을 구한 사안에서, 을의 설계도서 중 적어도 지붕 형태, 1층 출입문 및 회랑 형태의 구조는 을 자신의 독자적인 사상 또는 감정의 표현을 담고 있어 위 설계도서는 을의 창조적 개성이 드러나는 저작물에 해당하고, 병의 설계도서는 을의 설계도서의 원본 캐드(CAD) 파일에 사소한 변형만을 가하여 작성한 것으로 을의 설계도서와 실질적으로 유사하므로, 갑 회사와 병은 저작권 침해로 인한 손해배상책임을 진다고 본 원심판단에 법리오해 등 잘못이 없다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Provisions referred to
[1] 저작권법 제2조 제1호, 제4조 제1항 제5호, 제8호 [2] 저작권법 제2조 제1호, 제4조 제1항 제5호, 제8호
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger