The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. As to Article 1 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 13081, Jan. 28, 2015; hereinafter “former Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 13081, Jan. 28, 2015; hereinafter “former Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) provides for “trade secret” as “production method, sale method, and other technical or business information useful for business

The phrase “not known to the public” refers to a situation in which it is objectively recognizable that the information is maintained and managed as confidential, such as where the information is obtained without going through a holder because it is not known to many and unspecified persons, such as a publication, etc., and where the holder of the information has an independent economic value, it refers to a situation in which it is possible to recognize that the information is kept in secret by considerable effort, such as where the holder of the information can obtain competition benefits or where he/she is able to obtain considerable expenses or effort to acquire or develop the information through the use of the information.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do139 Decided August 25, 2011). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that each of the data recorded in the annexed data list of the lower judgment constituted the Plaintiff Company’s trade secret.

Examining the records in accordance with the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.

In so doing, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on trade secrets.