[2] Where the issue was whether Gap infringed Eul's trade secret, the case affirming the judgment below that Gap's act does not constitute "act of infringing on trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act on the ground that Gap's act did not constitute "act of infringing on trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act on the ground that "the design drawings of the rupture correction apparatus, technical data of the rupture correction apparatus, and specifications" alleged as Eul's trade secret cannot be deemed as being maintained and managed as secret

1. As to the ground of appeal on which the constitutional right to trial was infringed

According to the records, since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on September 12, 2008, the judgment of the first instance was rendered on August 13, 2009 after the date for pleading four times in the first instance trial and the date for pleading once in the first instance trial, and thereafter, the plaintiff submitted a written amendment of the purport of the claim on December 8, 2009 and submitted it on December 9, 2009, and until the pleading is concluded at the date for pleading in the first instance trial in the court below on March 31, 2010 after the date for pleading in the fourth instance of the court below was stated on March 31, 2010.

Therefore, even if the court below did not dismiss the plaintiff's application for resumption of pleading after the closure of pleading only on the fourth day for pleading, it cannot be said that there is an infringement of the plaintiff's constitutional right to trial as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

2. As to the ground of appeal on the trade secret nature of the design drawing of the heat liverer, the technical data of the air conditioners, and the specifications

The term "trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (amended by Act No. 8767, Dec. 21, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) means any production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which are not known to the public and has independent economic value, and which are maintained in secret by considerable effort, and the phrase "it shall be maintained in secret by considerable effort" means a state where it is recognizable that information is maintained and managed in secret objectively, such as where it is possible to recognize that the information is secret, and where it is displayed or notified that the information is classified as secret, or where it is restricted to access persons or access persons who have access to the information, or where it is imposed a duty to keep secret (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da44542, Dec. 23, 2010).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the design drawing has been maintained and managed as confidential because it is acknowledged that the design drawing has not been maintained and managed as confidential because the plaintiff's objective view, such as (i) the phrase "confidential" was stated in the design drawing; (ii) the plaintiff's persons eligible to access the design drawing or the access method; or (iii) the design and manufacturer's duty to maintain confidentiality was imposed on the persons who access the design drawing; and (iv) the plaintiff's assertion that the design and manufacturer's supply of the correction machine does not impose a confidentiality duty on the other party; and (iv) there is no indication that each document is confidential in each document, including the defendant's employees, etc., and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's technical records or access to each document, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's technical records or access to each document, since the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's technical records or access to each document.

3. As to the grounds of appeal as to the trade secret of the technology itself for designing and producing the heat rupture and rupture rupture rupture and re

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's acquisition of the plaintiff's technology for designing and producing the air conditioners and air conditioners through the plaintiff's design drawings, technical data and specifications for air conditioners, and since these documents themselves do not constitute trade secrets, the defendant's act does not constitute "act of infringing trade secrets" under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act on the sole basis of the fact that the defendant's act became aware of the plaintiff's design production technology through the document does not constitute "act of infringing trade secrets" under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act. Rather, in light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the defendant had already accumulated the production technology for independent correction devices around 203.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there are no errors in finding facts contrary to the rules of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence beyond the limits of free evaluation of evidence, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or violating the reasons. In addition, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant infringed the plaintiff's trade secrets by violating the duty of confidentiality acknowledged to the defendant, and thus, it is deemed that the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant infringed the defendant's trade secrets is included in the purport of rejecting

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)