1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is a company established on February 13, 2006 for the purpose of developing and supplying software.

The defendant is a company established on May 21, 1996 for the purpose of software development consultation and supply.

On June 28, 2016, the Plaintiff and C Vietnam Corporation (C; hereinafter “C”) entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on December 31, 2016, under which the Plaintiff would engage in the development of CDR systems (hereinafter “C system”) by December 31, 2016, and C would pay USD 245,955 (including taxes) to the Plaintiff in return.

(A) On July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on July 4, 2016 on the Plaintiff’s C system development services to pay KRW 15 million (excluding value-added tax) in return for the performance of the Plaintiff’s C system development services, including the Defendant’s work of HTS UI design from July 4, 2016 to December 31, 2016, the development of the C system AD total of KRW 70, the DobBAFICE total of 170,000,000 won (excluding value-added tax).

(A) On December 27, 2016, the Defendant refused to provide the source code (hereinafter “instant contract”). On December 27, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a document stating that “the delivery and installed output shall be limited to the consolidated file final outcome, and the development source code for the output shall not be provided.”

(A) On January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document stating that the output submitted at the time of the request for tallying includes a bar code in relation to the preparations for tallying.

(A) However, on January 13, 2017, the Defendant sent a document to the effect that “No. 8 is provided, and a small code of development inherent in the system developed with the current technological power, is not provided, and only is provided with the final outcome of the relevant file.”

(Evidence A No. 9). On January 19, 2017, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to provide the source code again.