1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 9, 2003, at a dental clinic, the first medical institution of the Plaintiff (C) recommended to capture all the residual paths of the mathal, and to create a general dental clinic. On July 9, 2003, a higher dental hospital applied to the hospital of dental schools for the first time to undergo medical treatment.

A dental school of the Defendant school is a person who establishes and operates a dental college hospital of the annual household, and Defendant B is a dentist belonging to the dental college hospital of the annual household, who is in charge of the diagnosis and treatment for the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Hospital”) Dental University Hospital in the annual household. (b)

On July 9, 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) explained that the Defendant hospital’s medical care plan and the amount of approximately four million won per sheet are required from the medical staff of the Defendant hospital; and (b) paid total of KRW 36,506,550 to the Defendant hospital as the medical expenses incurred intermittently from the Defendant hospital until January 21, 201; and (c) received the said medical expenses and received the said medical treatment in bad faith and bad faith. The main contents are as follows.

(i) The remaining patriarchs were released in bad faith, and the part is composed of six fixure landfills, without being equipped with a fixure f.o.b.s., the buried body was placed as a pole and installed a vegetable s.e., a vegetable dog that does not cover the vegetable.

Shelling the remaining path of Shell, 6 fluor landfills were planted on the part, and fluor was installed with a fixed object using natural paths and natural fluor.

C. On January 27, 2011, the Plaintiff rejected the Defendant hospital’s receipt of any more universal treatment, and filed the instant lawsuit claiming the return of medical expenses and the payment of consolation money against the Defendants on October 24, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's Evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's Evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. (i) The Defendants are composed of six parts of the original Plaintiff’s trade secret. The Defendants are composed of six parts of the instant trade secret.