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

A. The Plaintiff is operating the “E Institute”, a private teaching institute for the curriculum D and 501 in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and Defendant B, a vice president in charge of the overall affairs of the instant private teaching institute, such as accounting, accounting, telephone consultation, and time table management, and Defendant C, a vice president in charge of the affairs of English class, English time table preparation, and English instructor management, who works for the instant private teaching institute from January 15, 2015 as the chief of the English department in charge of the affairs of English language, English time table preparation, and English instructor management.

B. In dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the Defendants retired from the instant private teaching institute on or around December 2016, and Defendant B, around January 2017, intended to open the “FAD” (hereinafter “FA”) which is close to the instant private teaching institute, and Defendant C served as an English teacher of FAD.

C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants against the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act”), the violation of the Personal Information Protection Act, defamation, and interference with business. However, on June 28, 2017, the prosecutor rendered a decision that the Defendants were not suspected of having committed all of the charges on the grounds of lack of evidence. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the decision that the Defendants were not suspected of having committed the said suspicion, but the Plaintiff dismissed the appeal, and the application for a ruling

[Supplementary High Court (Cap. 2017 Seocho Jae-gu 415). 【Ground for Recognition】 Facts that there has not been any dispute, Gap’s 1 through 5, 10, and Eul’s 1, 6, 8, 9 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. On December 13, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) Defendant B visited “G”, which is the management support system of the instant private teaching institute; (b) deducted the Plaintiff’s trade secret students and released students’ school, academic year, telephone number, parents’ telephone number, school progress status, counseling materials, etc. (hereinafter “instant information”) without the Plaintiff’s consent; and (c) Defendant C connect the instant information to “G” on January 3, 2017, after the Plaintiff’s retirement from the private teaching institute.