Open Decision Ledger · IP, data & telecommunications
Scope of Article 4(3) of the 1995 Copyright Act supplementary provisions
Supreme Court, Dec. 10, 2020, 2020Do6425 (judgment)
Case name: 저작권법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does the use permitted by Article 4(3) of the supplementary provisions of the Copyright Act amended by Act No. 5015 of 6 December 1995 extend to a work that uses a derivative work of a restored original created before 1 January 1995 but adds new creative expression that is substantial in quantity and quality?
Holding
It does not. Article 4(3) governs continued use of a derivative work of a restored original created before 1 January 1995 and is difficult to regard as permitting the creation of a new work; reading it too widely would hollow out the protection of the author of the restored original or infringe that author's right to make derivative works. Even where a work is substantially similar to such a derivative work, it falls outside the permitted use once the new creativity added by modifying it is quantitatively and qualitatively substantial, so that in social understanding it amounts to a new work.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 회복저작물을 원저작물로 하는 2차적저작물과 이를 이용한 저작물이 실질적으로 유사하더라도, 위 2차적저작물을 수정·변경하면서 부가한 새로운 창작성이 양적·질적으로 상당하여 사회통념상 새로운 저작물로 볼 정도에 이르렀다면, 위 부칙 제4조 제3항이 규정하는 2차적저작물의 이용행위에는 포함되지 않는다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, even where a derivative work based on a restored work as the original work is substantially similar to a work using that derivative work, if the new creativity added in the course of revising or altering the derivative work is quantitatively and qualitatively substantial enough that it may be regarded as a new work in light of social norms, it must be concluded that it is not included in the acts of use of derivative works as provided in paragraph (3) of Article 4 of the Addenda.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
1995년 개정 저작권법 부칙 제4조 제3항은 회복저작물을 원저작물로 하는 2차적저작물로서 1995. 1. 1. 전에 작성된 것을 계속 이용하는 행위에 대한 규정으로 새로운 저작물을 창작하는 것을 허용하는 규정으로 보기 어렵고
Unofficial English translation
Paragraph (3) of Article 4 of the Addenda to the Copyright Act as amended in 1995, being a provision concerning derivative works based on a restored work as the original work and acts of continuing to use what was created before January 1, 1995, is difficult to regard as a provision permitting the creation of a new work, and
Factors
- 1995. 1. 1. 전에 작성된 것을 계속 이용하는 행위에 대한 규정으로 새로운 저작물을 창작하는 것을 허용하는 규정으로 보기 어렵고
- 회복저작물의 저작자 보호가 형해화되거나 회복저작물 저작자의 2차적저작물 작성권을 침해할 수 있다
- 수정·변경하면서 부가한 새로운 창작성이 양적·질적으로 상당하여 사회통념상 새로운 저작물로 볼 정도에 이르렀다면
Unofficial English translation
• being a provision concerning acts of continuing to use what was created before January 1, 1995, it is difficult to regard it as a provision permitting the creation of a new work, and
• protection of the author of a restored work may be rendered a dead letter or may infringe upon the restored work author's right to create derivative works
• if the new creativity added in the course of revising or altering is quantitatively and qualitatively substantial enough that it may be regarded as a new work in light of social norms
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the shared creative expression of the earlier derivative work still predominates over the differences, what measure of quantitative and qualitative weight added by the later work turns it into a new work?
The retrial judgment of the Seoul Central District Court will show how the standard of substantial new creativity is applied to a comparison of the two editions. Any later decision treating the boundary of Article 4(3) of the supplementary provisions differently, or any amendment to the Copyright Act's supplementary provisions of 6 December 1995, would call for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
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 Central District Court, in its judgment of 8 May 2020 (2019No442), held that Article 4(3) covers only use that keeps the identity of a derivative work created before 1 January 1995. It found that publishing the ☆☆☆☆ edition, produced by partly revising and expanding the □□□□ edition of 『◇◇』 Volume 1, was not use of the □□□□ edition written before that date, and convicted the defendants of copyright infringement.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misapprehended the law on the use of derivative works under the 1995-amended Copyright Act. On the evidence lawfully admitted below, it found that the differences between the two editions, such as split or merged sentences, changed positions of narration and dialogue, revised words and added passages, did not outweigh the shared creative expression of vocabulary, syntax, sentence length, style and the characters' tone, so the ☆☆☆☆ edition was substantially similar use of the □□□□ edition and could not be said to amount to a new work. It reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul Central District Court for retrial, without deciding the remaining grounds of appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A work that modifies a pre-1 January 1995 derivative work of a restored original without adding new creativity that is substantial in quantity and quality, so that the common creative expression still predominates.
- A derivative work created on or after 1 January 1995, since Article 4(3) reaches only a derivative work written before that date.
- A simple reproduction of a restored work rather than a derivative work, since Article 4(2) governs copies made before 1 January 1995 until 31 December 1996.
Record verification notes
Compare the two editions directly and mark every passage of the earlier derivative work that appears in the later one, since the Court weighed the shared creative expression against the differences. Then fix the publication date of the earlier derivative work, and keep apart any claim by the original owner for reasonable compensation for use after 31 December 1999 under Article 4(3).
From the official text
Points at issue
1995. 12. 6. 법률 제5015호로 개정된 저작권법 부칙 제4조 제3항의 규정 취지 및 위 규정에서 허용하는 회복저작물을 원저작물로 하는 2차적저작물 이용행위의 범위
Unofficial English translation
The purport of the provision of paragraph (3) of Article 4 of the Addenda to the Copyright Act amended by Act No. 5015 on December 6, 1995, and the scope of acts of use of derivative works based on a restored work as the original work permitted by that provision
Summary of the holding
1995. 12. 6. 법률 제5015호로 개정된 저작권법(이하 ‘1995년 개정 저작권법’이라 한다)은 국제적인 기준에 따라 외국인의 저작권을 소급적으로 보호하면서, 부칙 제4조를 통하여 위 법 시행 전의 적법한 이용행위로 제작된 복제물이나 2차적저작물 등을 법 시행 이후에도 일정기간 이용할 수 있게 함으로써 1995년 개정 저작권법으로 소급적으로 저작권법의 보호를 받게 된 외국인의 저작물(이하 ‘회복저작물’이라 한다)을 1995년 개정 저작권법 시행 전에 적법하게 이용하여 온 자의 신뢰를 보호하는 한편 그동안 들인 노력과 비용을 회수할 수 있는 기회도 부여하였다. 특히 2차적저작물의 작성자는 단순한 복제와 달리 상당한 투자를 하는 경우가 많으므로, 부칙 제4조 제3항을 통해 회복저작물의 2차적저작물 작성자의 이용행위를 기간의 제한 없이 허용하면서, 저작권의 배타적 허락권의 성격을 보상청구권으로 완화함으로써 회복저작물의 원저작자와 2차적저작물 작성자 사이의 이해관계를 합리적으로 조정하고자 하였다. 1995년 개정 저작권법 부칙 제4조 제3항은 회복저작물을 원저작물로 하는 2차적저작물로서 1995. 1. 1. 전에 작성된 것을 계속 이용하는 행위에 대한 규정으로 새로운 저작물을 창작하는 것을 허용하는 규정으로 보기 어렵고, 위 부칙 제4조 제3항이 허용하는 2차적저작물의 이용행위를 지나치게 넓게 인정하게 되면 회복저작물의 저작자 보호가 형해화되거나 회복저작물 저작자의 2차적저작물 작성권을 침해할 수 있다. 따라서 회복저작물을 원저작물로 하는 2차적저작물과 이를 이용한 저작물이 실질적으로 유사하더라도, 위 2차적저작물을 수정·변경하면서 부가한 새로운 창작성이 양적·질적으로 상당하여 사회통념상 새로운 저작물로 볼 정도에 이르렀다면, 위 부칙 제4조 제3항이 규정하는 2차적저작물의 이용행위에는 포함되지 않는다고 보아야 한다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울중앙지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.
Provisions referred to
구 저작권법(1995. 12. 6. 법률 제5015호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제1항, 저작권법 제3조 제1항, 제136조 제1항 제1호, 부칙(1995. 12. 6.) 제4조 제1항, 제2항, 제3항
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