1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 2012, Pyeongtaek-si’s promotion of the project to create a public parking lot of Pyeongtaek-si established a plan to create a D public parking lot (hereinafter “instant public parking lot project”) in order to resolve the parking shortage of Pyeongtaek-si, under the supervision of the transportation administration and the parking facility team for the first time of October 2012, and finalized it around October 19, 2012.

B. On the other hand, while the Plaintiff worked as E, the competent department of the pertinent public parking lot project at the time of the implementation of the instant public parking lot project, and acquired occupational secrets related to the project implementation, the Plaintiff purchased the land subject to the instant public parking lot project, but offered that if the land price increases due to disclosure of the information on the implementation of the public parking lot of this case, it would return the land to Pyeongtaek-si and make profits from the sale, and that it would be invested in the Defendant together with the Defendant on October 2012, and the Defendant accepted it.

Then, on November 9, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased Nonparty F’s 1,290 square meters prior to Pyeongtaek-si’s 1,290 square meters prior to J; (b) KRW 1,472 square meters prior to J; and (c) KRW 1,266 square meters for Pyeongtaek-si, another land owned by H, and KRW 1,266 square meters for total prices; and (b) completed the registration of ownership transfer in F and G’s name on December 31, 2012.

C. During the criminal punishment against the plaintiff and the defendant, with regard to the acquisition of land using the information on the promotion plan of the public parking lot project in this case, the plaintiff was indicted for violation of the Act on Prevention of Corruption and the Establishment and Management of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission (public officials’ gain on confidential information), violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (title trust), violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (title trust), and a final and conclusive judgment of conviction. The defendant was prosecuted for a violation of

Grounds for recognition: Whether there is no dispute between the parties or is evident.