1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and its modification are as follows, except for the following changes, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

From the 6th part of the first instance judgment, one to eight pages above are changed as follows. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s transaction partner constitutes a trade secret prescribed by the Unfair Competition Prevention Act or a benefit which is worth protecting by an agreement prohibiting competition.

[A evidence Nos. 15 through 21, B 16, 20 evidence, Eul evidence Nos. 22 through 26 (including each number), witness H, and the purport of the whole pleadings] ① Information on Japanese business partners claiming that the Plaintiff is worth protecting appears to mean the trade name, name of the person in charge, contact information, etc. of the main company that has transacted with the Plaintiff.

However, this is not only known to the same industry, but also it seems that the related enterprises could have secured the contents of their efforts and costs without any particular effort and cost through saccination or Internet search.

[On the other hand, the plaintiff submitted a customer list (No. 20 No. 20-1 and 2) to the appellate court, but it is difficult to deem that the defendants worked in the plaintiff's "E", and even according to its content, it is difficult to view that there is information worth special protection.)

The plaintiff E or G, to which the defendants belong, shall take exclusive charge of the test products, etc. to Japanese customers.