A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells household appliances, etc. at 60 or more nationwide points and provides services related to provisional attachment.

On August 6, 2009, the Defendant joined the Plaintiff Company and worked at the Plaintiff’s B’s branch office from August 2, 2013 to July 31, 2015.

B. Around August 9, 2009, the Defendant prepared and submitted a “confidential Observance Pledge” (hereinafter “instant pledge”) to the Plaintiff.

The provisions relating to prohibition of competition among them are as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as the "instant arrangement").4. The person subject to the prohibition of competition under the foregoing clause does not, without consent of the company, be employed in the same or similar duties as the start-up of the same type of business in the Si/Gun located in the same Si/Gun as the location of the final workplace of the company, or in the same or similar duties in the same Si/Gun.

(3) If a person starts up a business or is employed in violation of the prohibition of competition as set forth in paragraph (4) above, he shall pay 100,000 won per day to the company as penalty until the violation is resolved.

around October 4, 2015, the Defendant runs the same kind of business as the Plaintiff by opening the “C” at a place less than approximately 338 meters away from the Plaintiff’s B branch.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of the liability for damages, the Defendant is liable for damages sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of its breach of the instant agreement.

B. Even if the validity of the instant agreement and the employee’s agreement exists, if such agreement is excessively limited to the workers’ freedom to choose occupation and the right to work, etc., which are guaranteed under the Constitution, or it excessively limits free competition, it shall be deemed null and void as a juristic act contrary to good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.