1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims added by this court are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for damages due to ① prohibition of copyright infringement and the claim for damages arising therefrom, ② prohibition of patent infringement and the claim for damages arising therefrom, ③ prohibition of and claim for damages from the infringement of trade secrets under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), ④ a claim for damages due to a wrongful reversal of contract negotiation, and ④ the first instance court dismissed all the claims.

On the other hand, it is clear that the plaintiff filed an appeal against the above part of the claim, and the court added the prohibition of unfair competition act under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and the claim for damages arising therefrom and the claim for damages arising from the tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the subject of this Court's adjudication is limited to the above three, five, and only this part is determined.

2. Basic facts (the circumstances of the instant construction works)

A. Defendant Hyundai Motor Company (hereinafter “Defendant Hyundai Motor Company”) decided to increase, extend, rebuild, or change the design factory of Hyundai Motor G located in the north-gu Seoul Metropolitan Area F (hereinafter “instant construction”) and asked the Plaintiff from April 2012 whether it is possible to perform the instant construction work, and the Plaintiff responded to the possible performance of the instant construction work immediately after receiving the above inquiry, and thereafter started preparation for the instant construction work from that time.

B. On June 2012, Defendant Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. (at the time BrSSS Korea Co., Ltd. was changed to Dan C&C Co., Ltd. on December 26, 2016; hereinafter “Defendant D&C”) also sought from Defendant D&C Co., Ltd. whether it is possible to perform the instant construction.