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

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that runs a construction interior, construction materials wholesale and retail business, and the Defendant joined the Plaintiff on March 1, 201 and served as the director of the sales division, who retired on December 19, 2014.

B. The non-party company (hereinafter “labor company”) is a corporation engaged in interior construction business, manufacture of building materials, and wholesale and retail business, and was supplied by the non-party company No. 199.

C. After retirement, the Defendant engaged in manufacturing and wholesale business with the trade name (the name of C, business registration on December 1, 2014) of Nonparty C and D, the spouse of the Defendant, and purchased 3,000 teas from Apponners, and established and constructed it at the site of the reduction public sector.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's main defense against the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's claim for damages related to the work of the labor union against the defendant should be dismissed due to the lack of standing to sue. However, in the lawsuit for performance, the standing to sue lies in the person who asserts that the right to demand performance exists, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and whether the right to demand performance exists or not, it shall be proved through a deliberation on the merits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da11848, Jun. 12, 1992; 2003Da44387, Oct. 7, 2005). The defendant's defense is groundless.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is known to the Plaintiff’s subsidiary company’s commission of the supply and installation construction of the tea pressure measuring machine through Nonparty E, after being aware of the Plaintiff’s commission of the Plaintiff’s corporate labor company’s corporate labor, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s purchase of 4.3 million won, which is equivalent to the construction cost, by falsely concluding that the labor company’s corporate labor contact with the human labor company on December 12, 2014, which was prior to retirement, changed to D.