1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. From 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a limited exclusive seller contract with the United States C and supplied C's feed, etc. in Korea.

B. The Plaintiff produced image files in order to maximize advertising effects by emphasizing the efficacy of the feed in a way that leads to customers' interest in various kinds of feed products of the U.S. C company, and by placing feed together with companion animals or properly placing photographs of raw materials of feed.

C. In addition, the Plaintiff described the characteristics of the product in each image file of feed so that the owner of the companion animal can easily understand the main ingredients, ingredients, amount of wages, method of storage, etc., and explained the method of and directions for the owner of the companion animal to select feed in detail.

The Plaintiff posted the instant copyrighted work on the Plaintiff’s website, etc., thereby introducing C's diverse feeds to customers who are owners of companion animals.

E. The Defendant sold C's feed through D's shopping mall, without the Plaintiff's permission, reproduced the above B's work, and published it in the feed detailed information column, thereby infringing the Plaintiff's property right and causing enormous damages to the Plaintiff in violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

F. Accordingly, the Plaintiff first claims to the Defendant for the payment of damages amounting to KRW 30 million and damages for delay.

2. As to whether the Defendant, while selling C's feed through the shopping mall of D Co., Ltd., published the work described in subparagraph 1-B of the Plaintiff's assertion in the material information column, it is not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff's assertion only with the descriptions or images of the evidence No. 1, No. 1, No. 2, No. 2-1 through No. 6, No. 3-4, and No. 3-1 to No. 21, No. 3-4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the Plaintiff's assertion No. 1 and the instant court No. D.