A service company that copied reports from other local governments... Haeundae-gu, Busan, wins appeal

(Busan = Yonhap News) Reporter Cha Geun-ho = The court ruled in favor of Haeundae-gu in the appeal trial of a legal dispute between Busan's Haeundae-gu and a service provider that submitted an interim report that virtually copied another local government's research report.

The Busan High Court's 6-1 Civil Division (Chief Judge Dong-han Bae) announced on the 14th that it canceled the first trial that ruled in favor of the plaintiff in the appeal trial of the lawsuit for confirmation of non-existence of debt filed by service company A against Haeundae-gu, Busan, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.

Haeundae-gu ordered the ‘Haeundae 2040 Vision and Strategy Establishment Service’ in September 2020, during the 7th popular election, and signed a contract with Company A in November of the same year.

The district paid the company an advance payment of 50 million won and an advance payment of 110.85 million won, and the task deadline, originally set for November 2021, was extended twice at the company's request and delayed until September 30, 2022.

However, Company A failed to complete the task by the final deadline and did not properly respond to the district's requests for correction, such as reinforcement of the research team.

In addition, when suspicions of plagiarism were raised in the submitted interim report, Haeundae-gu canceled the contract in December 2022.

Next, they requested a total of 180 million won worth of restoration, including return of advance payment and advance payment, and payment of contract deposit.

Accordingly, Company A filed a lawsuit arguing that the cancellation of the contract was unfair and that there was no need to return the money because 77% of the total service had already been performed.

The first trial court ruled in favor of the company, saying that while it considered the cancellation of the contract itself to be justified, it was difficult to conclude that all of the results produced by the company were unprofitable to the district.

However, the second trial's judgment was different.

The first trial ruling was completely overturned based on the results of the Korean Copyright Commission's evaluation.

The appellate court found that the interim report submitted by Company A was substantially similar in all items to existing plans of other local governments, such as 'Gwacheon Vision 2040 Growth Plan', 'Seongnam Vision 2040 Long-Term Comprehensive Development Plan', and 'Daegu Suseong-gu 2030 Long-Term Comprehensive Development Plan'.

In particular, the court criticized, “Except for the SWOT analysis, the rest of the report has a significantly high level of literal similarity to existing reports from other local governments,” and added, “Except for changing the name of the region, it is virtually a copy of the content.”

Next, it was determined that there was no reasonable reason for not completing the task within the deadline even after the deadline was extended twice, and that the plagiarized report could not be considered a result that brought actual benefits to Haeundae-gu.

In addition, as the original purpose of this service is to complete a final report through public hearings and public opinion surveys of residents, the court ruled that it is difficult to recognize the completion of construction and services solely on the grounds that some of the related procedures have been carried out or costs have been spent.

Kim Seong-su, head of Haeundae-gu District, said, "After taking office in the 8th popular election, we received reports that the completeness of the results was significantly lowered and a significant portion of the work was suspected of plagiarism, so we took steps to cancel the contract and recover the money. This ruling is meaningful in that it has changed the practice of paying the contracted service fee even though the service was not properly performed, and it prevents tax money from being wasted."