1. This Court includes the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit changed, expanded or added by this Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 28, 2002, when the Plaintiff was working as an associate professor in the department of study in the family of K medical college, the Plaintiff established the Defendant (a trade name at the time of its establishment was “M stock company,” and the trade name was changed to “N of the stock company,” on April 14, 2015, and was changed to the current trade name on August 7, 2006), and owned 25% shares.

B. As to the program J 1 program, the Plaintiff registered the program copyright pursuant to the former Computer Program Protection Act (amended by Act No. 9625 of April 22, 2009, pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the Copyright Act amended by Act No. 9625 of July 23, 2009) with the program author as the Plaintiff and the date of creation as I.

C. The Defendant, using the program No. 1, operated C service business, and registered the author of the program No. 2, which is similar to the program No. 1 on October 8, 2009, as O Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”) under the Copyright Act, and the date of creation was terminated by P.

As to the third program C on November 20, 2013, the defendant completed the copyright registration on June 1, 2013 by designating the author as the defendant and the date of creation as the date of the copyright under the Copyright Act.

E. The Defendant, in consultation with theO, shall require the cancellation of the program registration for the program No. 2, and completed the copyright registration by making the name of the author of the program No. 2 on March 5, 2014 as the Defendant and the date of creation P.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 27, 31, 32, 33, 50 (including evidence with a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) is the copyright holder of the first program. 2) The Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s consent, engaged in the business of providing C services at a cost using the first program, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright on the first program.

3. The defendant alters the first program without the plaintiff's consent and produces the second and third programs.