The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning stated in this part is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for correction as follows.

3. On November 5, 2013, the first instance court’s decision was amended to “ November 5, 201” as “ November 5, 2013.”

A. The part of the claim for damages arising from the violation of the instant contract infringes on the Plaintiff’s exclusive supply profit by selling the instant products, the idea and form of which are the same, through the sexual criminal withdrawn company from around 2014.

This is against the “4. Product Design Protection” provision and the “15. Confidential Information Information” provision under the instant contract.

B. The part of the claim based on Article 2 subparagraph 1 (i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”) is manufacturing and selling the Defendant’s product of this case which imitates the form of the Plaintiff’s product.

This is the act of reproducing the product form under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (i) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

C. The defendant's act of claiming under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act constitutes an act of infringing the plaintiff's economic interests by using the outcome, etc. achieved by the plaintiff's considerable investment or effort for his/her own business without permission in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition

This falls under Article 2 (1) (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

3. Determination

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from the violation of the instant contract, the Defendant asserts that the mobile phone products subject to the instant contract are limited to “Alphone 5” and “Alphone 5S,” so the Defendant’s manufacture and sale of the Defendant’s product, which is a mobile phone case for “galgalgno 3” and “galgalgno thalgno 3, is not a breach of contract.

Therefore, it is necessary.