1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s officers and employees were using each of the above programs without permission, and sought damages against the Defendant on the ground of copyright infringement. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was the author’s economic right holder of a computer program, a window, an off-line, a server, a server, and a program.

On August 2014, the fact that the Plaintiff was the holder of author’s property right of each of the above programs and the fact that the Defendant purchased 11 OE program on or around August 2014, which was after the instant application for conciliation was filed by the Defendant, does not dispute the Defendant. However, in light of the respective descriptions of Eul’s Evidence Nos. 2 through 12, including each number, the above circumstances and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone recognize the fact that the Defendant’s officers and employees illegally reproduced each of the above programs and used them, lack to specify the number of

2. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed without any further review as to the remainder.