1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and 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 adding the judgment on the conjunctive claim added by the plaintiff to this court. As such, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The part of the decision of the court of first instance written shall be " March 4, 2016" in Section 9 of the decision of the court of first instance.

On the fourth decision of the court of first instance, the term "Seong Saemaeul Community Depository" in the fourth decision of the court of first instance shall be added next to the "Seong Saemaeul Community Depository".

B. Inasmuch as it is compatible with the claim for damages caused by the existing tort regarding the conjunctive claim and the claim for damages caused by the nonperformance added at the trial, it is substantially selective consolidation relationship.

However, the judgment shall be made as asserted by the plaintiff.

1) The Defendants asserted that, at the time of their service at the Daejeon Branch, they do not infringe on the basic business rights of the Plaintiff’s company when they were employed by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s assertion that “if they were employed by the company in competition with the Plaintiff at the time of his retirement” (hereinafter “instant letter”).

(2) The Defendants, as alleged by the Plaintiff, actively participated in the maintenance and repair contract of the electronic device between the Plaintiff and the instant community credit cooperatives in the course of performing the same work, after the Plaintiff retired from the Plaintiff Company, and actively participated in the same work, thereby violating the obligations under each of the instant text, and thereby compensating the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s losses. (2) Even if the Defendants, as to the preparation of the instant text as alleged by the Plaintiff, set up it, contrary to recognizing the fact of the preparation of the instant text, Defendant A denied the establishment of the respective text (Evidence No. 16-1) under the name of the Plaintiff while denying it.

The plaintiff bears the obligations under the above letter of commitment and retires from the plaintiff company as above.