1. The Plaintiff’s respective appeals against the Defendants and the selective claims added by this court are all dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance is written as follows. As such, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Section 2 below 5 below 'H'

The trade name of "B" has been changed to M Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as "H").

In the second amendment, the term "the four contracts" below shall be "the contract of this case" and "the contract of this case".

“Revision to Schedule”

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In D’s copyright registration program, as a hub system, the Plaintiff asserted that there is a difference from the MUG program supplied by Defendant B, since the electronic manual for examining the obligation of the D’s programs developed by himself/herself (which is not dependent on any particular work pattern or data, and which can be applied to all industrial sectors upon partial revision in accordance with the policy or standard required in each field) is different from the MUG program provided by Defendant B. As such, the electronic manual for examining the obligation that the Plaintiff created and claimed by himself/herself is a solution for the MUG program for convenience (hereinafter “MUG solution”).

(1) MUG solution itself is a program work and content (hereinafter “instant content”) including information and examination criteria on diseases included therein.

(2) The Plaintiff supplied the MUG solution via H to Defendant B through H. As a result, Defendant B was supplied with the MUG program containing H’s MUG solution.

3) However, as the Defendants infringed the Plaintiff’s rights as follows, they are jointly and severally liable to compensate for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff. (A) Defendant B’s employees who infringed the Plaintiff’s property rights to MUG Solar.