[1] The case where the infringement of trade secrets is prohibited, and where the same kind of work and its auxiliary work are engaged in or are engaged in the same kind of work

[2] Prohibition of engaging in the same kind of work as an enterprise, and freedom of choice of occupation under the Constitution

[1] The case prohibiting infringement of trade secrets in the event that a director of a competition company newly participating in the production of the same kind of product is transferred to a director without any particular reason while recognizing information on manufacturing technology, etc. introduced from overseas as trade secrets, and prohibiting the person from engaging in the manufacture, sale, and auxiliary work of the same product as necessary

[2] Prohibition of changing the position of a person holding a trade secret itself to a same business entity is beyond the scope of the right of prohibition or prevention against infringement of trade secrets, and it cannot be deemed an appropriate measure to protect trade secrets, and it shall be an essential infringement on the freedom of occupation under the Constitution as a result of excessive infringement on the personality of the person holding a trade secret. However, in light of the fact that there is a need to protect trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, there is a need to protect trade secrets, and considerable effort to protect trade secrets, and that the person holding a trade secret cannot protect trade secrets unless he/she prohibits the person from engaging in manufacturing and selling the same kind of product of the same competitive business and its auxiliary business to protect trade secrets, it shall not be deemed that the suspension of the person holding the trade secret from engaging in the manufacturing and selling the same kind of product of the same competitive business entity and its auxiliary business is essentially an infringement on the freedom

[1] Article 2 subparag. 2, subparag. 3, and Article 10 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act / [2] Article 10(2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, Articles 15 and 37(2) of the Constitution

East Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Cho Dong-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Taeyang Industrial Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Dong-dong, Attorneys Park Woo-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. Until the judgment on the merits becomes final and conclusive, condition that the Claimant deposits each gold of 50,000,000 won as a guarantee for the respondent within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the notice of this decision by the Respondent;

A. The respondent Thai Mining Industry Co., Ltd.

(1) No credit shall have the respondent engage in the manufacture and sale of the Acrylon Macrylon Moom and its auxiliary work;

(2) No person shall obtain or use trade secrets listed in the separate sheet from the respondent's credit science or disclose the trade secrets so acquired;

B. The respondent credit studies

(1) The respondent is not engaged in the manufacture, sale, and assistance of the above Acryle Matrile Matrile, Inc., and the respondent is not engaged in such business;

(2) The respondent shall not use trade secrets listed in the separate sheet or provide or disclose them to the respondent Thai Industrial Co., Ltd. or any other third party.

2. The applicant's remaining requests are dismissed.

3. The applicant may submit a document which has entered into a payment guarantee entrustment agreement with the amount under the above paragraph (1) as the insured amount.

4. The filing cost shall be five minutes and four minutes shall be borne by the respondent, and the remainder shall be borne by the applicant.

1. According to the records of this case, the following facts are substantiated.

A. The applicant is a company engaged in the manufacturing industry of basic industrial chemicals, Acrylon Moomer, A.N. M. M.M. (hereinafter referred to as the "products of this case") and Cheongsicoon, etc. Acrylon Moomer, A.N. M. M. (hereinafter referred to as the "N. M.M.) and Cheongsico Co., Ltd. around September 22, 1969, the applicant introduced the production technology of the products of this case from PPPP International C. to improve the production technology of the products of this case from around 1972 to improve the production technology of the products of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "production technology of this case" of this case from around March 2, 191 to improve the production technology of the products of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "Manufacture PPP International C.) and improve the production technology of this case from the manufacturing industry of this case to improve the production technology of this case from the manufacturing industry of this case.

B. At the time of concluding each technology introduction contract between September 22, 1969 and December 28, 1993 between the above company and the above company, the applicant agreed not to disclose the technical information to a third party instead of obtaining an exclusive license in our country with respect to the technology introduced from the above company. The applicant’s collective agreement and rules of employment imposed an obligation not to disclose the trade secrets to the third party, and received a written pledge and a written statement from all employees to comply with the duty of confidentiality with respect to the trade secrets.

C. Since the respondent joined the applicant company as an employee of the production department on January 1, 1975, the respondent was aware of the fact that from April 1, 1978, the director in charge of technology research from January 15, 1984, the director in charge of technology division from August 25, 1984, the director in charge of technology division from September 15, 198, the director in charge of technology division from September 15, 198, and the director in charge of technology production and technology from June 1, 1990, and the director in charge of overseas technology training from June 1, 1990, and submitted a pledge that "the applicant does not divulge trade secrets to the applicant in 1979 and 1989, and bears these obligations even after retirement."

D. On October 10, 1994, the respondent Taedong Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Taedong Industrial Co., Ltd.) introduced the manufacturing technology and promotional manufacturing technology of the product of this case from the Montreal Co., Ltd. and announced that he will participate in the A.N. Mono Manufacturing business. On November 4, 1994, the respondent's credit science submitted a resignation letter to the applicant company immediately without any special reason for resignation and was engaged in the manufacturing business of the product of this case in Taedong Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Taedong Industrial Co., Ltd.) and his position exceeds that of the applicant company.

E. Although the manufacturing technology of the Montreal Co., Ltd. for the product of this case that the respondent decided to introduce is not the same as that of the applicant, it is based on the manufacturing technology of the said non-carbon Co., Ltd. and the Asisisung Industrial Co., Ltd. introduced by the applicant.

2. Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "the act of using or disclosing trade secrets" is "the act of obtaining or disclosing them to the public with knowledge of the fact that the trade secrets are disclosed in accordance with subparagraph (d) or the fact that the disclosure thereof was involved or without such knowledge or gross negligence, and Article 10 (1) of the same Act provides that "the person holding the trade secrets may file a claim with the court for prohibition or prevention of such act where business interests are infringed or feared to be infringed on by the said act with respect to the person who infringed or intends to infringe on the trade secrets." Article 2 subparagraph 3 (d) of the same Act provides that "the act of using or disclosing the trade secrets to the public for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damages to the owner of the trade secrets." Article 2 subparagraph 3 (e) of the same Act provides that "the act of acquiring or disclosing the trade secrets acquired by the owner of the trade secrets may, if necessary by the said act, prohibit or prevent the act from being committed against the person who infringed or intended to infringe the trade secrets."

As set out in paragraph 1 above, the respondent is obligated to maintain the above trade secrets even after his retirement. The respondent also has an obligation to maintain the above trade secrets. In addition, the respondent has been engaged in A.N. Mano-M. Mano-M. Mano-M. Mano-M. Mano-M. Mano-M. Mano-U.M. Mano-M. Mano-M. Mano-U.M. Mano-M. Mano-U.M. Mano-M. Mano-U.M. Man's trade secrets are currently worth protecting the applicant's trade secrets, such as providing the applicant's duty to observe trade secrets and receiving a written pledge to maintain trade secrets from all employees. As such, the respondent's credit science and the respondent's duty to protect the applicant's trade secrets, such as the applicant's Mano-M. Mano-M. Mano-M. Mano-U.M. Mano-M.

3. Furthermore, the applicant asserts that the respondent's credit science cannot prevent the respondent from infringing the applicant's trade secret unless it itself prohibits the respondent's work in the solar industry, and that the respondent's credit science sought a prohibition of employment in the respondent's solar industry and sought a prohibition of employment in the respondent's credit science for the respondent's solar industry, the respondent argues that the prohibition of the transfer of the respondent's credit science to the respondent's solar industry is essentially an infringement of the Respondent's freedom of employment choice under the Constitution.

On the other hand, Article 37 (2) of the Constitution provides that "All freedom and rights of the people may be restricted by law only when it is necessary for national security, maintenance of order or public welfare, and even if it is restricted, it shall not infringe on essential contents of freedom and rights." Thus, prohibition of transfer to the respondent's solar industry to the respondent's solar industry, as alleged by the applicant, exceeds the scope of the applicant's right to prohibit or prevent infringement of the applicant's trade secrets, and cannot be deemed as an appropriate measure to protect the applicant's above trade secrets, and as a result of excessive infringement of the respondent's personality, it shall not be deemed as an infringement of the applicant's freedom of occupation under the Constitution. However, the purport and contents of the provision on the trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the applicant has made many efforts to protect the applicant's trade secrets, and the respondent has made many efforts to protect the applicant's trade secrets. In light of the fact that it is impossible to protect the applicant's above trade secrets without prohibiting the applicant from engaging in the business of choosing, selling and assisting the respondent's occupation and sales of the applicant's.

4. Therefore, the applicant's application of this case is justified within the scope of recognition under Paragraph (1) of this Article, and it is thus accepted, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Separate Notice】

[List of Trade Secrets]

1. With respect to the manufacture of the Acryon Moomer (hereinafter referred to as A.N. Maomer), the technical information and business information granted from the BPheas Ltd. (BPheas Inc.) of the United States, and the propex International C.A. and Japan, the Icry Industries Co., Ltd. (Acryon Industries Co., Ltd., Ashhem-Ltd.) and the applicant's technical and business information based thereon.

2. Technical information, business information, and the applicant’s improved technology and business information on the basis of which the applicant developed with respect to the manufacture of Cheongsoda (SDA) or which was granted from Japan’s tsunami machine Co., Ltd. (Ssukish Ki Co.).

3. Technological information and business information granted by the above-mentioned tsunami machinery corporation with respect to the treatment and recovery of waste water and waste gas in the A.N. Monos manufacturing process, and improvement technology and business information of the applicant based on such information;

4. Technical information and business information in possession of the applicant with respect to the manufacture of the Acrypta (ACYALAMFDE), Eethylenedieneminaminate (Et-hyenediaminate Acida) and its salts, glyri, biphenylgly (GLYCINE/PHENAL GYCINE) and Hadddddon nitrobane nitrote (Hydrazobisisbu-tyronia)

Judges Lee Dong-dae (Presiding Judge)