1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, and except where the plaintiff and the Defendants added the judgment on the assertion emphasized by this court as set forth in paragraph (2), the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence

The "interest" in the 11th of the first instance judgment shall be added to "interest" in the part being used.

The 11th judgment of the first instance court, 11th to 13th cases, “Aphere to B”, shall be followed as follows.

If the Defendants interpreted “A,” as such, the Defendants did not receive cash dividends for two consecutive years,” they would result in the Defendants’ failure to take the appraisal right to distribute dividends to shareholders in violation of the Commercial Act even in cases where there is no distributable profit. As such, such interpretation may not be made. If the “case where a person is unable to receive cash dividends for two consecutive years” ought to be construed as such, Article 2(5) of the instant Stock Sales Contract is associated with illegal conditions and is null and void in accordance with Article 151(1) of the Civil Act.” The Defendants asserted to the effect that Article 2(5) of the instant Stock Sales Contract is null and void in accordance with Article 151(1) of the Civil Act.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, 9, 17, 18, and 27, Article 8 of the Stock Sales Contract of this case provides that the Plaintiff and other sellers are not engaged in competitive business for five years from June 8, 2012, which is the date of entering into a contract, and are obligated to work as full-time or part-time employees in the target company. In violation of such provision, the Plaintiff was working in the target company until December 31, 2013. According to the Stock Sales Contract of this case, T and U, a seller under the Stock Sales Contract of this case, T and U, the seller of this case, used and divulged trade secrets to V, a competitor of the target company for the purpose of gaining unjust profits, are indicted. However, Article 2 (5) of the Stock Sales Contract of this case is acknowledged.