1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The part of the plaintiffs' claim for intervention in the lawsuit of this case.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The defendant, as the plaintiffs' trade employees, violated the above obligations by lending the name of the wife or establishing and operating for the defendant's account, the same kind of company, although it was unable to engage in a transaction belonging to the same type of business or the same type of business without the business owner's permission in accordance with Article 17 (1) of the Commercial Act. Thus, the defendant's trade that the defendant operated F should be deemed to have been done for the account of

B. The Defendant’s act of establishing F by lending the name of the Defendant’s wife while working as the employee of the Plaintiffs is occupational breach of trust and trade secret, which violates the duty of loyalty and prohibition of competition while in office.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the above illegal acts.

3. The right to intervene under Article 17 of the Commercial Act, ex officio, as to the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' claim for intervention in the lawsuit of this case, is a trade employee's trade employee's trade employee's trade employee's own account or on the account of a third party's own account in order to protect the economic interests arising from a trade employee's violation of the duty of prohibition of competition, and the trade employee's trade employee's trade employee's account can be viewed as a trade employee's account if the transaction was made on his/her own account. If the transaction was made on the account of a third party's account, the proprietor is entitled to claim for the transfer of the profit accrued from the trade employee's account, and the trade employee's right to claim for the transfer of the profit accrued from the trade employee

The defendant from July 1, 2004 to October 1, 2012.