1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. On the premise, E and F developed a “enterprise VN program” which is a computer program for logistics management in around 2001. This is a program that enables the auto parts manufacturers to print supply cards and components labels by linking G stock companies (hereinafter “stock companies”) with the auto parts manufacturers, which are their subcontractors, by having them receive G orders and process data received and print the supply cards and components labels.

(hereinafter “Plaintiff Program”). Since its establishment on June 24, 2002, the Plaintiff is running a business that sells the Plaintiff’s program, maintains and repairs it, and sells bar codes, net labels, etc. necessary for the Plaintiff’s program. Since its establishment, the Plaintiff is a representative director and the F is an internal director.

Defendant C retired from office as the Plaintiff’s employee from March 1, 2007 to April 28, 201, and thereafter, Defendant C established the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and took office as the representative director on March 22, 2012.

From September 1, 2007 to June 30, 201, Defendant D was serving as the Plaintiff’s employee and was serving as the inside director of the Defendant Company.

Around 2012, Defendant Company developed and sold a computer program listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “Defendant Program”) and is also a logistics management program that enables the computerization of an order and an intermediate process of delivery between G and subcontractor.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's Evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both claims;

A. The Plaintiff’s program constitutes a creative production expressed by a series of instructions and commands used directly or indirectly within a device having data processing capacity, such as a computer, in order to obtain specific results of the Plaintiff’s work as a work related to the Plaintiff’s business (Article 2 subparag. 16 of the Copyright Act), and its source code also constitutes a source code.