손해배상(기)
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion (based on those arranged in the preparatory brief dated August 19, 2015). A.
Defendant B, C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “B, etc.”) concluded that the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff (i.e., the term from March 3, 2014 to February 28, 2015) based on the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 2-1 to 4 (A building contract) and the evidence Nos. 3-1 to 4 (information protection agreement). The said Defendants agreed that the Plaintiff’s trade secrets should not be disclosed to a third party during the period of work, and that the Plaintiff’s trade secrets should not be employed or cooperation with the competitor, and that the Plaintiff would not be employed by the same company for one year upon the termination of the employment contract relationship between the Plaintiff and the same company.
Nevertheless, the above Defendants were in violation of the labor contract with the Plaintiff by running model classes for the business of H, a competitor, and by leaving his job under the lead of Defendant B.
Therefore, the above defendants are liable for damages arising therefrom.
B. The summary of the assertion of liability for tort due to occupational breach of trust is an instructor belonging to the Plaintiff, who deals with the Plaintiff’s business. The Defendant B, etc. committed a collaborative act, such as taking a model class for H, a competitor, and disclosing trade secrets, and transferred the trade secrets. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered losses, such as changing the trading company to H, etc., which constitutes a tort, and thus, should compensate the Plaintiff for damages, such as the purport of the claim.
C. Defendant G is the head of H’s Song-nam branch office, Gangnam-nam branch office, and has instigated other Defendants to commit a tort, and thus, Defendant G is jointly and severally liable for damages with other Defendants.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants’ assertion of nonperformance is the employer, and first, in the case of Defendant F, there is no labor contract with the Plaintiff, and in the case of Defendant B, C, D, and E, the evidence Nos. 2-1 through 4 of the evidence No. 2 of the case of Defendant B, C, D, and E, the Plaintiff stated that “A” is “A”.