1. Defendant C’s KRW 61,546,317 to Plaintiff B Co., Ltd. and KRW 5% per annum from October 1, 2018 to February 14, 2020.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs and G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) are all companies engaged in pharmaceutical sales and distribution business, etc.

Plaintiff

H, the representative director of A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”), controlled the Plaintiffs as a majority shareholder of the Plaintiffs.

B. Defendant C, E, and F were the workers of Plaintiff B, and Defendant D were the workers of G.

The Defendants did not strictly distinguish the affiliated companies according to the direction of H et al., a controlling shareholder, and did also take charge of the affairs of the Plaintiffs and G.

Defendant C’s last position was the representative director of Plaintiff B, and Defendant C, on the corporate register, was treated as retired on October 31, 2018, and Defendant D, E, and F retired on the same day.

On July 27, 2018, prior to retirement, Defendant C completed business registration with the trade name “I”, and thereafter, Defendant C operated the same kind of business as that of Plaintiffs and G after the registration date.

Defendant D, E, and F were involved in I’s business with Defendant C after retirement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the cause of claim

A. The Defendants asserted that they violated the duty of prohibition of competitive business against the Plaintiffs at the time of their employment as employees or representative directors. After their retirement, they committed tort against the Plaintiffs as they moved to their own business by reducing sales from their clients.

The damages shall be claimed by October 15, 2019.

B. 1) As seen earlier, the part concerning Plaintiff B’s claim against Defendant C prior to the date of retirement (i.e., the part concerning Plaintiff C’s claim (i., the corporate register as of the date of retirement of Defendant C) was treated as retired on October 31, 2018.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1, Defendant C stated in the internal document prepared by the plaintiffs as retired on October 1, 2018, and all of the calculation of wages, retirement allowances, etc. was based on the retirement date.

In addition, it is necessary.