Lee International

In a recent copyright infringement damages case in which Lee International’s affiliate firm secured a final victory, the Korean Supreme Court established clear standards for determining the copyrightability of golf course designs, an issue on which lower courts had previously reached conflicting conclusions (Supreme Court Case No. 2024 Da 228661).

In this case, Golfplan Incorporation (“Golfplan”), the plaintiff, filed a damages claim against Golfzon Co., Ltd., a provider of screen-golf services, alleging that golf courses designed by Golfplan had been reproduced and used without authorization in Golfzon’s screen-golf games.

The court of first instance, the Seoul Central District Court, held that golf course designs constitute more than a mere compilation of topographical information and qualify as copyrightable works reflecting the creator’s individuality. Accordingly, it found copyright infringement and awarded damages. On appeal, however, the Seoul High Court concluded that golf course designs consisted primarily of functional or idea-based elements and therefore lacked the originality required for copyright protection, ruling in favor of the defendant.

Before the Supreme Court, Golfplan argued that golf course designs are not merely reproductions or technical arrangements of natural terrain, but rather creative works that embody the designer’s individuality through the selection, arrangement, and combination of various elements, including teeing grounds, fairways, roughs, bunkers, water hazards, and greens. With respect to damages, Golfplan further contended that a portion of the online usage fees directly generated from the screen-golf service should be recognized as damages, relying on the so-called “25% Rule,” a methodology that has been widely referenced in intellectual property valuation and licensing practice.

The Supreme Court focused not on the individual elements depicted in the golf course design drawings, but rather on whether the overall configuration created through the selection, arrangement, and combination of those elements constituted a creative expression. The Court further held that where such selection, arrangement, and combination go beyond mere imitation and reflect the creator’s distinctive individuality, the resulting design drawings may qualify for copyright protection as original works distinguishable from existing golf course designs. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s decision and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

This decision is significant in that it resolved the conflicting approaches previously adopted by lower courts regarding the recognition of originality in golf course designs. In particular, given that the screen-golf industry originated in Korea and has since spread globally, the ruling is expected to serve as an important legal benchmark for similar disputes not only in Korea but also in other jurisdictions. Most importantly, the decision reaffirms the principle that when creatively designed golf courses are commercially exploited, their creators should receive fair compensation, thereby carrying substantial practical and industry-wide implications.