1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The Plaintiff’s ground of appeal cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance in the part other than a claim for return of unjust enrichment, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are deemed legitimate even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is added to each evidence submitted in this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the determination of selective claims added by the plaintiff in the court of the first instance, and therefore, the relevant part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the selective claim (the claim for return of unjust enrichment) was made by the employee of the Defendant Company, thereby reproducing the instant program, thereby acquiring the instant program without paying the price. Therefore, regardless of whether the Defendant Company used the instant program in the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company obtained a benefit equivalent to its exchange value, and the Plaintiff suffered the same loss.

Therefore, the defendant company asserts that the above amount should be returned to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

As a result, a copyright infringement actor obtains profits from another person's property or labor without legal cause, the right holder who is a loss shall be deemed to have the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment against the infringer. However, in order to recognize the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment by the copyright holder, as in the application of the general principle of the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment, the causal relationship that the copyright holder suffered losses should be proved.

In this case, the fact that all employees employed by the defendant company copied the program of this case and stored the program of this case on the present computer for business use in the defendant company, but the program of this case is also used.