A. In a case where it is recognized that Defendant A, B, C, D, E, J, K, and L were not negligent in making efforts to maintain and manage trade secrets in light of the size of the company, financial capacity, etc., Defendant A, B, C, D, D, K, and L may be recognized as business secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”).

In full view of the fact that the rules of employment, document management, and security regulations of the victim S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) set specific security management methods in the rules of employment, document management regulations, and security regulations have been set, and in particular, the content of the document management has been set up and revised several times, which reflects the contents of the written agreement on the retirement of the defendant A, which means not disclosing confidential information, etc. from its employees, and reflects the same in the written agreement on the retirement of the defendant A, which conducts security measures such as non-regular security education, and granting the access authority to computer, and the establishment and management of the protection zone for the victim by introducing the unmanned security system, access card, fingerprint recognition system, etc., the victim company has been making considerable efforts to keep the victim’s secret within the scope of limited human resources and resources, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confidentiality.

B) In addition, even if the damaged company partly lacks confidentiality and management as a small and medium enterprise, if it is recognized that it did not neglect efforts to maintain and manage trade secrets in light of the size, financial capacity, etc. of the company on the premise that other requirements are met, it shall be recognized as “business secrets” under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.