1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From March 21, 2016, the Plaintiff is a company that opened and operated a specialized educational institute for learning and science (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s private teaching institute”) in the trade name “AAAAAA” on the first and second floors of the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul. The Defendant served as the head of the counseling office at the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute from May 21, 2016 to September 2018.

B. Around September 10, 2018, D, who served as an instructor and the principal at the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute, wanted to open a school specialized in education (hereinafter “FA”) with the trade name of “FAD” on the 6th floor of the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul E, Seoul, located as approximately 200 meters away from the said private teaching institute, and the Defendant retired from the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute on September 10, 2018 and thereafter served as the head of the FAD office.

C. On December 11, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the investigative agency on the grounds as indicated in the separate sheet, and the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutor’s Office investigated the Defendant’s business obstruction, violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Leakage of business secrets, etc.), and violation of occupational trust, etc., and issued a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant on March 19, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 9, Eul's 1 through 6, the purport of the whole statement or video, or pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute, the Defendant released information falling under “trade secret” under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), such as the list of students, sexual records, weak subjects, learning methods, and method of teaching, etc., without the Plaintiff’s permission. At the same time of the withdrawal from the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute, the Defendant released the Plaintiff’s personal information from the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute, and entices the said students to the FK by using the Plaintiff’s personal information.

The defendant's act constitutes a trade secret infringement under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (d) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.