All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2015Da5170 Decided October 27, 2016【Affirmation of Nullity of Dismissal, etc.】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Whether an act of using someone else’s work of authorship or original idea without properly indicating the source constitutes plagiarism, a type of research misconduct (affirmative) Method of indicating each source in cases where an author translates foreign literature himself/herself and cites the translated text in his/her work or cites translations of foreign literature in his/her work Whether an author bears a duty to indicate the source when citing parts of a previously co-written work in his/her own subsequent work (affirmative in principle), and when citing another co-author’s work among compiled or combined works that were previously co-written (affirmative) [2] Where an author cited another person’s work in his/her work without indicating the source and thereby made it difficult to distinguish the works, notwithstanding that the author collectively and comprehensively indicated the source of the cited work in the introduction or reference (other than the body) of his/her work, whether it can be inferred that the author copied another’s work with the intent of making it appear as if the work was written by himself/herself (affirmative in principle) Where an author used another person’s previous work in his/her work without appropriately indicating the source, whether occurrence of plagiarism is negated solely on the basis that the other author gave his/her consent (negative) [3] Whether the above can be deemed a research misconduct equivalent to an unconventional or any other form of plagiarism, i.e., so-called “selfplagiarism” [4] Whether plagiarism shall be determined depending on the research ethics prevailing at the time a work of authorship was written if there exists an interval between the period of preparation and the period of plagiarism determination (affirmative in principle) Whether the meaning of research ethics is confined to the statutory definition under the regulation on research ethics (negative) [5] In cases where plagiarism in a dissertation creates legal relations that cause friction and thus becomes the subject of judicial review, whether a court has the ultimate authority with regard to determining plagiarism (affirmative), and the method of determination used [6] In the event a person submitted his/her finalized dissertation following a review and received a doctor’s degree, whether he/she is allowed to replace the original version by submitting a revised version to the relevant graduate school (negative), and whether the same applies for the purpose of indicating sources, i.e., citations of previous works, that were omitted in the original dissertation (affirmative) [7] Requirements for the justification of dismissal Whether a research misconduct (i.e., plagiarism in a dissertation) by an employee, who submitted his/her dissertation as part of an employer’s conditions for recruitment, can be deemed a justifiable ground for dismissal (affirmative) Criteria for determination as to whether a generally accepted employer-employee relationship can continue in such a case If an employment contract or personnel policy of a government-sponsored research institute specifically states “any defect or false information discovered in a dissertation submitted by a researcher during the recruitment process” as a ground for dismissal, whether a dismissal on such ground can be deemed justifiable (affirmative in principle) |
|
