1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (formerly, “Co., Ltd.”) is a company established on June 14, 2010 with its business purposes including software development, sale, etc., and is dissolved by the Seoul Central District Court 2014 non-conforming5189 decided July 9, 2015 after the closure of business on May 26, 2014, and the procedure for liquidation is in progress.

From around 2012, the Plaintiff had been engaged in the development of a fishing system under the name of “D”. However, around February 2013, the said development personnel left away from the Republic of Korea.

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant (formerly, “Co., Ltd. E”) is a company established on November 7, 2012 with software development business, etc. for its business purposes, and is developing and operating a program “D” that can easily produce Internet homepage, mobile, and web display.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap No. 1, 13, 19, the purport of the whole pleading

2. At the time when the Plaintiff developed the “D” program, the company manager was Nonparty F. On February 2013, the said F had the Defendant Company develop the said program using the Plaintiff’s employee and other Plaintiff’s assets by changing most of the Plaintiff’s employees to the Defendant Company’s management. Accordingly, the Defendant occupied and profits from the result without permission.

Therefore, the defendant shall return the above “D” program to the plaintiff, but it is appropriate not to return originals due to the nature of the computer program, so the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount claimed by the plaintiff out of the amount equivalent to KRW 261,66,232, which is the appraised value of the above program

3. Judgment on the issue

A. Examining the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 18, 26, and 40 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and witness G testimony, the plaintiff was established at KRW 100 and KRW 100,000 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares, and up to May 18, 201, H was established at KRW 40, KRW 30, and J.