1. The part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the first instance, including the claim expanded and added in the trial, shall be as follows:

1. The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for counterclaim, since the defendant appealed only to the counterclaim part among the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Determination on the cause of the counterclaim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the entries and arguments in Gap 1, 2, Eul 10, and 12 as to the claim for the return of the instant teaching materials, the Plaintiff’s work as an instructor at the "Cudio Reading Institute" operated by the Defendant from December 21, 2012 (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”) and retired on January 25, 2014. The instant private teaching institute established the “Korea Private Teaching Institutes” on July 24, 2013, and established the Korean Private Teaching Institutes, and the Plaintiff was running the Korean Private Teaching Institutes from the above Korean Private Teaching Institutes to the time of retirement. The instant teaching materials were produced by the Plaintiff, and used in the said Korean Private Teaching Institutes and the subsequent Korean Private Teaching Institutes, and it is recognized that the Plaintiff retired from the instant private teaching institute and was in custody until now.

The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff made the instant teaching material according to the Defendant’s instruction, and thus, the Plaintiff sought damages from the return of the instant teaching material and the removal of the instant teaching material by asserting that the ownership of the instant teaching material was owned by the Defendant. On the other hand, the Plaintiff, without the Defendant’s instruction, manufactured the instant teaching material according to his own judgment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the ownership of the instant

The following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 11, 15, 17, and 18 and the overall purport of the arguments. In other words, the Plaintiff initially continued to engage in logical and speed reading at the instant driving school, and started to engage in Korean history lessons from the establishment of the said Korean history special lecture; ② The instant teaching materials were manufactured for the purpose of the said Korean history special lecture; and the instant teaching materials were manufactured for the students of the said Korean history special lecture at the instant driving school.