1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the ground for damages claim part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The main point of the plaintiff's argument is that the computer program companies (J, K, L, etc.) respectively enter into a contract for the use of computer programs with their members and receive maintenance expenses.

In the program operated by computer program companies, the time measured by the plaintiff is included, and the members claim the repair cost according to the working hours, and the computer program companies transmit the maintenance cost to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Computer program companies pay KRW 330 or KRW 550, which is part of the user fees received from members, to the Defendant as the cost of transmitting the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. This is because the Defendant provided the Plaintiff’s copyrighted works and takes profits pursuant to the instant contract to the computerized program companies, and the Defendant is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages equivalent to half of the fee or

Judgment

The fact that the defendant distributed the standard improvement time table to its members and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff at the first instance and the first instance court is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant provided the standard improvement time table, which is the result of the research service in this case, to the computer program companies, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

On a different premise, the Defendant’s above assertion cannot be recognized without examining the scope of compensation for damages or return of unjust enrichment.

If so, the plaintiff's claim can not be accepted, and all of the claims can be dismissed.

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable with the conclusion. As such, all additional selective claims are dismissed in both the Plaintiff’s appeal and the trial, and the part of the claim for actual cost of research service in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.