2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The following facts are not in dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings as to Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7-1 through 23, Gap evidence 9, and Eul evidence 3-1, and there is no counter-proof.

Around February 17, 2003, the Plaintiff Company was established for the purpose of the development and sale of security equipment and software, and acquired the above program from the Defendant, the copyright owner of IM4 Pex 1) di SPex (Attached 1-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-the-job program; hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiff Company"), who held office in the non-party 7 Company, and participated in the development, and entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff Company for the purpose of using the above program to the DVR (DVR, DGV vV Red VRec) DV system (DV 2) program (a lagra, attached Form 1-B-A-A-A-the-job program, etc. on June 2003; hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiff Company's employment contract period") for the purpose of developing the Plaintiff Company's DV PP PP-A-the-job program (hereinafter referred to as "the Plaintiff Company's employment contract period").

2. Determination on the claim for each program listed in attached Form 1

A. The purport of the parties’ assertion

(1) The plaintiff company's assertion

(A) The Plaintiff Company acquired the copyright of the said program from Nonparty 7 Company, the copyright holder of the 1-A program, and thus, the Plaintiff Company is the copyright holder of the 1-A program, and each program listed in the 1-b. through (f) (hereinafter “each program listed in the 1-b. through (f)”) was created by the Plaintiff Company in accordance with the Plaintiff Company’s planning. Accordingly, each program listed in the 1-A (hereinafter “each program listed in the 1-b. through (f)”) is a program created in the course of business prescribed in Article 5 of the Computer Programs Protection Act, and the copyright is the Plaintiff.

(B) In addition, each program of paragraph (1) is evaluated to have a relatively superior performance among the programs used by the plaintiff company for unmanned monitoring video recording equipment, and the plaintiff company entered into an agreement with the non-party 7 corporation and the non-party 7 corporation to impose the duty of confidentiality on the above program at the time of acquiring the program from the non-party 7 corporation, and the plaintiff company manages each of the above programs as the plaintiff company's secret. Thus, each program constitutes trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter "Unfair Competition Prevention Act").

(C) The Defendant, while holding office in the Plaintiff Company, acquired each of the above programs while participating in the development of each of the programs under paragraph (1). Even after retirement of the Plaintiff Company, each of the programs under paragraph (1) was stored, kept, and managed in the storage media, and offered a proposal to the Plaintiff Company to purchase the above programs for its own business or divulge them to a third party, thereby infringing on the Plaintiff Company’

(D) Accordingly, the Defendant shall not use the respective programs in paragraph (1) or divulge, provide, or disclose them to a third party, and shall not engage in the development, manufacture, sale, and support of video processing software based on MP 4 technical standards. The Defendant has the duty to deliver the storage media in which each of the above programs is stored to the Plaintiff.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) Since the Plaintiff Company did not keep the program under Paragraph (1) as confidential, the program does not constitute trade secrets.

(B) After completing the development of each program listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the attached Table 1-B (hereinafter “each program listed in paragraphs (b) and (c)” among the programs listed in paragraph (1), the Defendant transferred all of the above programs to the employees of the Plaintiff Company, and the Defendant did not directly participate in the development of the remaining program, and does not own each program individually, and the Defendant did not suggest the purchase of each program listed in paragraph (1) to the Plaintiff Company. Thus, the Defendant cannot be said to have infringed upon the copyright and trade secret of each program listed in paragraph (1) of the Plaintiff Company.

(C) Accordingly, the argument by the Plaintiff Company that the Defendant might infringe the copyright and trade secret of each program under Paragraph (1) of the Plaintiff Company, and the claim by the Plaintiff Company premised on this is without merit.

B. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff Company is a copyright holder of each of the above programs

(1) Whether the Plaintiff Company is the copyright holder of the first-A program

The fact that the plaintiff company acquired the copyright of the above program from the non-party 7 corporation, the copyright holder of the above program, is identical to that of the above basic facts, so the plaintiff company is the copyright holder of the above program.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff Company is a copyright holder of each program set forth in paragraphs (b) through (f) of Article 1.

The program created by a person who is engaged in a business of a corporation, etc. under the planning of the State, corporation, organization, or other employers shall be the author of the program concerned, unless otherwise specified in the contract or work rules. In full view of the whole purport of the argument in each of the above basic facts and the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, 9, 13, and 14 (including each serial number), the plaintiff company shall have the defendant who is a researcher of the plaintiff company develop each program under paragraph 1-b. and paragraph 1-c. and paragraph 1-d. through (f) of the attached Table No. 1-B., and it can be recognized that the plaintiff company has developed each program under the planning of the plaintiff company, the researcher of the plaintiff company, and the non-party Nos. 1 and 2, who is the researcher of the plaintiff company, develop each program. According to the above recognition facts, each program is confirmed as a program created on duty under Article 5 of the Computer Programs Protection Act.

C. Whether each program listed in paragraph (1) is a trade secret of the Plaintiff Company

(1) "Trade secret" under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act means any technical or managerial information useful for production and sale methods and other business activities, which has an independent economic value. Considering the overall purport of pleadings as to Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7-1 through 18, Eul evidence 3-1, and Eul evidence 1, the plaintiff company acquired the plaintiff company's 1-A program at KRW 100 million. The plaintiff company paid KRW 20 million to the defendant from June 2003 to June 2005 and developed the programs under Paragraph 1-B and Paragraph 1-7. After the plaintiff company acquired the program under Paragraph 1-7, the non-party company's 7 years have passed since it acquired the program, and the non-party company's 1-7 program's 1-7 program's 7-7 program's 1-7 program's 1-7 program's 7-7 program's 1-7 program's s/ 1-7 program's s/ 7-1-7 program', respectively.

(2) Therefore, the claim for the prohibition of trade secret infringement by the Plaintiff Company, premised on the fact that each of the programs listed in paragraph (1) constitutes trade secret, is no longer necessary to examine the remainder.

D. Whether the Defendant’s copyright of each program under Paragraph (1) is likely to be infringed

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 8, 13, 14, and 35, the defendant participated in the development of each program under paragraph (1) from the date of November 2004 to the date of retirement of the plaintiff company, the defendant served more than once a week from December 2, 2004 to June 2005, and the remainder work more than once a week from June 2005, and the defendant tried to sell the plaintiff company 3) H. 264 D.C. (attached Form 2-A) and programs related thereto, but it is recognized that the defendant attempted to sell the above recognized facts and the above evidence Nos. 80, Gap evidence Nos. 81, 82-1, and 2-1, and 2 were stored and managed in the storage media under paragraph (1) even after the retirement of the plaintiff company, and there is no possibility of infringing on the copyright of the plaintiff company. The defendant's assertion in this part of this case is groundless.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, it is not necessary to examine the above claim of the Plaintiff Company based on the premise that the Defendant might infringe the copyright and trade secret of the program under Paragraph 1 of the Plaintiff Company.

3. Determination on the claim for each program listed in attached Form 2

A. The purport of the parties’ assertion

(1) The plaintiff company's assertion

(A) On March 2004, Nonparty 3, the chief researcher of the Plaintiff Company, directed the Defendant, a researcher of the Plaintiff Company, to develop Espex H.264 (A) program in attached Form 2; hereinafter “paragraph (A) program in attached Form 2”). The representative director of the Plaintiff Company, around April 2004, instructed the Defendant to develop the instant program in Section 2-A (A) by setting the Defendant’s annual salary as KRW 100 million and agreed to extend the employment contract for one year. The Defendant developed each program in attached Form 2 (2) (hereinafter “each program in paragraph (2)”), including the program in Section 2-A (hereinafter “each program”). Accordingly, each program created by the Defendant is the copyright owner of each of the instant programs.

(B) In addition, each program of Paragraph (2) is classified as trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, since the plaintiff company manages the program as confidential, and it is not known to the public, and since the video recording equipment company for unmanned monitoring intends to develop competitively and has economic value, each program constitutes trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

(C) Even after the retirement of the Plaintiff Company, the Defendant is likely to infringe on the Plaintiff Company’s copyright and trade secret by using each of the above programs for its own business or by divulging them to a third party, including, but not limited to, storing, keeping, and managing each of the above programs in storage media.

(D) Therefore, the Defendant shall not use the program under paragraph (2) or divulge, provide, or disclose to a third party, and shall not engage in the development, manufacture, sale of, and support for, video processing software based on H.264, which is based on H.264, and shall not be engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling, and supporting, video processing software. The Plaintiff shall be obligated

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) The defendant did not receive an instruction from the plaintiff company to develop the program of Section 2-A, and there was no fact that the plaintiff company has completed the improvement and stabilization work of each program of Section 1-b. (c) and the defendant has subsequently agreed to extend the employment contract with the plaintiff company for one year upon the plaintiff company's request that it purchase it, and to extend the employment contract with the plaintiff company for one year. Since the above program was not owned by the plaintiff company, the copyright of the above program is not owned by the plaintiff company, and the above program is not a trade secret of the plaintiff company, and the defendant created each program of Section 2-b. (f) through Section 2-f (hereinafter referred to as "each program of Section 2-b. (f)").

(B) All the evidence presented by the Plaintiff Company at the appellate court shall not be admitted as evidence, as it constitutes an attack method by practical time limit.

(C) Therefore, the copyright of each program under Paragraph (2) is against the Plaintiff Company, and each of the above programs is a trade secret of the Plaintiff Company, and the Plaintiff Company’s claim is groundless.

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to whether the Plaintiff Company is a copyright holder of each program under paragraph (2)

(A) Determination of the 2-A program

Article 9(b) of the Computer Program Protection Act provides that "A clerical work shall be an author of the relevant program, unless otherwise stipulated in a contract or work regulations, etc.," and Article 9 of the Copyright Act provides that "An author of an occupational work which is made public in the name of a corporation, an organization, etc. shall be the corporation, etc., if the author of the work has no other provision in the contract or work regulations, etc., to determine the ownership of the work among the authors who actually create the work through his/her organization or employee, because it is a creative work expressing human thoughts or emotions." Article 5 of the Computer Program Protection Act provides that "An author shall be the author of the relevant program, etc., unless otherwise stipulated in a contract or work regulations, etc., and it is difficult for the user to take into account that the author is a corporation, an organization, etc., whose original author is the author, to be only a natural person who actually performs his/her own mental work, and it shall be interpreted as limited to the meaning of the "plan of the user, etc., which is a corporation or an employee.".

돌이켜 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 원고회사는 보안장비 및 소프트웨어의 개발, 판매를 업으로 하는 회사라는 것은 앞서 본 바와 같은데, 이러한 회사로서는 프로그램의 개발이 회사의 시장 경쟁에 있어서 사활이 걸린 문제이고, 동영상 압축 코덱의 기술발전으로 보아 제1항의 엠펙4(MPEG4) 코덱에서 제2항의 H.264 코덱으로 나아가고 있는 상황이었으므로 원고회사로서는 이러한 기술의 발전에 따른 상응한 기술개발에 대한 기획을 하고 이를 지시하여 프로그램을 개발하도록 하였어야 함에도 불구하고, 원고회사는 제2의 가.항 프로그램 기획과 관련한 어떠한 내부문서뿐만 아니라 제작 과정에 관여한 자료도 제출하지 못하고 있어 업무상 저작물에 있어서 사용자인 법인의 명시적 의사가 현출되었다고 볼 수 없고, 다음으로 위와 같은 명시적 의사에 상응하는 정도로 이러한 의사가 명백히 추단할 수 있는지에 관하여 보건대, 위 소외 3이 2004. 3.경, 원고회사의 대표이사가 2004. 4.경 각 피고에게 제2의 가.항 프로그램의 개발을 지시하였다는 원고회사의 주장에 부합하는 듯한 갑 제13, 15, 28, 35, 88호증의 각 기재와 당심 증인 소외 3의 증언은 믿기 어렵고, 갑 제7호증의 1 내지 23, 갑 제53호증, 갑 제62호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제76호증, 갑 제77, 78호증의 각 1, 2, 갑 제80호증의 각 기재와 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 위 소외 3은 2003. 11. 28. 소외 7 주식회사의 사장인 소외 4로부터 피고에게 전달하여 달라며 H.264 코덱 소스코드를 이메일로 전달받았고, 그 후 2004. 2.경 피고에게 위 소스코드가 들어 있는 CD를 건네주었으며, 피고가 원고회사에서 사용하던 PC를 분석하면 2004. 4.경부터 엠펙4(MPEG4) 파일의 수정작업은 점차로 줄어들었고, H.264 파일의 수정작업이 증가하였으며, 2004. 8. 20. 피고가 개발하던 H.264 코덱 관련 DVR.H 파일 속의 레지스터 설정에 나타난 " ○○" 및 " △△"은 원고회사에서 제공한 16채널 보드에 꽂히는 엔코딩 보드에서만 등장하는 칩으로 피고가 원고회사에서 제공한 16채널 보드를 이용하여 TI DSP칩에 포팅을 하였고, 2005. 초경 제작된 DVR 제품 브로셔에 "H.264"와 "MPEG4"가 모두 포함되어 있었으며, 2005. 2. 28. " □□"이라는 제목으로 위 소외 3이 영업부장인 소외 5에게 보낸 이메일에 멀티코덱으로 "H.264"와 "MPEG4"를 동시에 지원하는 것으로 명시하였고, 2005. 3. 7. 위 소외 3과 영업부 소외 16 간의 이메일에서 " □□"에 사용될 판넬 문구를 " ◎◎"로 수정하라는 내용과 "H.264 codec이 올라갈 수 있는 시점을 6-7월로 보고 있는데, 그때 다시 검토해야 합니다."라는 내용을 포함하고 있으며, 피고의 급여는 고용계약 2년차부터인 2004. 7.부터는 1년차 월 지급액인 508만 원에서 841만 3천 원으로 대폭 인상되었고, 2004. 12.경부터는 일주일에 하루만 원고회사에 출근하는 재택근무까지 허락받은 사실을 인정할 수 있으나, 위 인정사실과 갑 제3호증, 갑 제6호증, 갑 제7호증의 1 내지 23, 갑 제12호증, 갑 제14 내지 23, 갑 27호증, 갑 제34호증의 1 내지 6, 갑 제49호증의 1 내지 5, 갑 제51호증, 갑 제54호증의 1, 2, 갑 제55, 56, 59호증, 갑 제61, 62호증의 각 1 내지 3, 갑 제64호증의 1 내지 5, 갑 제65, 72, 73호증, 갑 제75호증의 1, 2의 각 기재 또는 영상만으로는 원고회사가 피고에게 제2의 가.항 프로그램의 개발을 기획·지시하였다고 명백히 추단하기에 다소 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으며, 오히려 갑 제8호증, 갑 제29호증의 1, 2, 갑 제41호증, 을 제1호증, 을 제3호증의 1, 48, 61, 98 내지 101, 112, 113, 114, 을 제4호증의 1 내지 6, 을 제5호증의 1 내지 17, 을 제6호증의 1 내지 7, 을 제7호증의 1, 2, 을 제11호증의 1 내지 3, 을 제14호증, 을 제20호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, ① 피고는 원고회사에 입사할 때 근로계약서나 영업비밀 침해금지 각서를 작성하지 않았고, 원고회사가 직원들에게 업무관리를 위하여 작성·제출하도록 요구하는 "MBO(Management by Objectives; 목표관리)"도 제출한 적이 없었고, 2004. 12.경부터 출퇴근도 자유롭게 하는 등 원고회사의 일반 근로자와는 다르게 근무하였던 사실, ② 원고회사의 종업원 중 제2항 각 프로그램을 개발할 수 있는 자는 피고뿐이고, 피고는 2004. 8. 이후에도 16채널 DVR에 과부하가 걸려 동영상이 전부 녹화되지 않는 문제를 해결하거나, 4채널 DVR의 코덱 통합작업을 수행하는 등 엠펙4(MPEG4) 코덱에 관련된 업무를 수행하여 온 사실, ③ 피고는 원고회사에 입사하기 이전인 2003. 4.경 소외 8 주식회사의 직원으로부터 제2의 가.항 프로그램 개발에 필요한 H.264 오리지널 주4) 소스코드 및 다큐멘트를 취득하여 제2의 가.항 프로그램 개발을 시작한 사실, ④ 피고는 2003. 상반기부터 개인적으로 친분이 있는 ◆◆대학교 전자정보공학부 교수 소외 6과 H.264 코덱 개발에 관한 상의를 하여 왔고, 2003. 8. 중순경 1주일간, 2004. 11. 말경 5일간, 2005. 7. 말경 10일간, 그 외 5회에 걸쳐 3일 이하의 기간 각 소외 6으로부터 주5) 엔브이디케이(NVDK) 와 제이티에이지 주6) 에뮬레이터(JTAG emulator) 를 대여 받아 제2의 가.항 프로그램 개발에 사용한 사실, ⑤ H.264 코덱에 사용할 DSP칩의 분석은 당해 칩의 성능이나 구조를 단순히 살피고 그 내용을 숙지하는 데 그치는 것이 아니라, 개발하려는 특정한 코덱의 종류, 성능 등을 고려하여 칩의 특성 및 성능을 분석·검토하고 향후 최적의 코덱을 개발하기 위해 필요한 정보를 수집·분석하고 개발방향을 정하는 과정으로 상당한 시간이 소요되는데, 원고회사가 피고에게 제2의 가.항 프로그램의 개발을 지시하면서 H.264 오리지널 소스코드를 건네주었다고 주장하는 2004. 3.경부터 불과 6개여 월만인 2004. 9.경 제1의 나.항 및 다.항 각 프로그램 개발 작업을 하고 있던 피고가 제2의 가.항 프로그램을 시연한 사실, ⑥ 피고는 10년 이상 프로그램 개발 업무에 종사하여 온 자로서 업무상 창작한 프로그램의 귀속에 대한 법규정을 소상히 알고 있는데도, 원고회사가 2005. 5. 16.경 영국 버밍햄에서 개최된 IFSEC 2005 보안제품전시회에 제2의 가.항 프로그램이 탑재된 디브이알 제품을 출품하기 이전인 2005. 4.경 원고회사에 피고가 대표이사로 있는 소외 9 주식회사가 원고회사에게 H.264 코덱 및 그와 관련된 프로그램을 공급하는 내용의 공급계약서 초안을 보낸 사실 등을 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정사실에 의하면 피고는 원고회사로부터 제2의 가.항 프로그램의 개발을 지시받지 아니한 채 개인적으로 제2의 가.항 프로그램을 창작하였다고 추인할 수 있을 뿐이므로, 제2의 가.항 프로그램이 업무상 창작한 프로그램으로서 그 저작권이 원고회사에게 있다는 원고회사의 이 부분 주장은 이유없다.

(B) Determination of each of the programs in paragraphs 2-b(b) through (f)

Examining whether the Defendant developed each of the above programs, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and there is no need to further examine the remaining points of the Plaintiff Company.

(2) Determination as to whether each program described in paragraph (2) is a trade secret of the Plaintiff Company

(A) Determination of the 2-A program

Article 2 subparag. 3(d) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that “The obligation to maintain trade secrets as a trade secret by contract relations, etc.” as referred to in Article 2 subparag. 2 subparag. 3(d) includes not only the existence of the contract but also the case where the contract is explicitly agreed to bear the duty to maintain confidentiality under the good faith principle or impliedly considering the characteristics of personal trust relationship, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da1605 delivered on December 23, 196). Thus, according to the above argument of the plaintiff No. 13, 15, 28, 35, the testimony of Non-Party 3 as stated in the above evidence No. 3’s evidence No. 6, Gap’s evidence No. 7-1 through No. 23, Gap’s evidence No. 8-4, No. 36, No. 14-27, No. 5, and evidence No. 8-4, No.

(B) Determination of each of the programs in paragraphs 2-b(b) through (f)

Examining whether the Defendant developed each of the above programs, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and thus, this part of the claim of the Plaintiff Company premised on this premise is without merit.

(3) Determination on the assertion of the method of attacking the actual time limit

Although the defendant asserts that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs at the appellate court constituted the actual attack method, the above argument is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, there is a copyright of each program under Paragraph 2 to the plaintiff company, and there is no need to consider all the above claims of the plaintiff company based on the premise that each program is trade secret of the plaintiff company.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case by the plaintiff company shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is just in its conclusion, and it is so dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment of List]

Judges Park Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)

1) ○○○, Texlas is a multi-national company that produces products, such as semiconductors, centers, control parts. The Proxal Proxal is a microprox, which is composed of one integrated circuit chip that processes signals by digital connection. The term “○○ MPEG Group” refers to a group that conducts research to ensure the transmission of information through the compressing of video and the code continuously changing depending on time and the expression of such group, or the combined standard established by the said group. M4 is one of the combined image standards established by the said group. ○○ CODDDDc means a software converting a voice or image signal into digital signal and restoring it into a DNA function.

Note 2) The language program is also an application program. It refers to a program designed to enable the user to directly perform a specific function or to have another language program directly perform a particular function. The term of the language programming program includes a word programming, database program, image editing program, etc. In the case of a motion picture program, it is a software that provides users with finished products, such as dexalalal, dex, network camera, network camera, etc., which make data communication possible between the operating system and dex and provide users with convenience for use, such as video display, and is a software that performs functions as soon as possible, such as a video display in the case of dexal, a closed image, screen division display and network function, and HD disc storage function.

Note 3) H.264, one of the types of video compression, was established and announced by the video professional group (JVT and Jin Vides Group) under the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the video professional group (ITU) under the International Telecommunication Group (ITU).

Note 4) The original source code of H.264 is the source code of a video compressing program developed, published, and distributed at a video team that establishes and announces H.264, which is the compressing standard of video images, and refers to a text file consisting of an order of a fake computer program in C language, so that he/she can download and download the video with a view to meeting the technical specifications of H.264 compressing standards.

Note 5) Esp developers developed by Esp chips partnership companies are Esp developers.

Note 6) Equipment that makes it easy to correct error of UNBD cases.