All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court shall decide whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of social justice and the principle of equity by free evaluation of evidence, taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The fact duly confirmed by the court of final appeal that the judgment below did not exceed

(3) The court below held that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant C et al. on the prohibition of competitive business between the plaintiff and the defendant C et al. is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant C, D, E, E, F, and G (hereinafter "the defendant C et al.") acquired the plaintiff's trade secrets, etc. while working for the plaintiff, transferred the plaintiff's development program and human resources to the defendant H (hereinafter "the defendant company"), and transferred the plaintiff's development program and human resources to the defendant company and lost the plaintiff's function of the service infrastructure business center. In addition, the court below held that the agreement on the prohibition of competitive business between the plaintiff and the defendant C et al. is highly likely to be invalidated pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act in the case of excessive restriction on the freedom of occupation by the defendant C et al.

The part of the grounds of appeal disputing such fact-finding by the lower court is merely an error in the selection of evidence and the determination of the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court.

In addition, even when examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the legal doctrine as seen earlier and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the duty of prohibition of competition, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, and by failing to exhaust all necessary

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 4, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.