1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,589,500 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 18, 2018 to November 30, 2018.

1. From May 2, 2011, the Plaintiff operated the Dacheon-si Building and 401 and 403 of the Dasan-si Private Teaching Institutes (hereinafter “instant Private Teaching Institutes”). The Defendant served as a school lecturer of the said Private Teaching Institutes from March 2, 2015 to September 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The same year to E, who filed an application for attending the instant private teaching institute without the Plaintiff’s consent on February 2017.

2. From 19. to the same year; and

9. The Plaintiff, who received 400,000 won per month from the building of the above private teaching institute while going beyond the private school until September 24, claimed that the Plaintiff committed a tort of causing damage to KRW 7 months, 100,000 per month from the tuition fees for the high school class of the above private teaching institute, and KRW 250,250,250 per month from March to September of the above building, and KRW 17,200 per month from the same period increased to September of the above building.

If evidence Nos. 2-1, 12, and 13 reveals the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant, without the Plaintiff’s consent, and the same year from February 22, 2017.

9. Until December 17, to E who attends the third-year course of Taesan High School, paid not more than 400,000 won monthly paid not more than 400,000 won per week to E and has given extracurricular lessons under the same year.

2. From 26. to the same year;

9. It is recognized that the Plaintiff used the instant private teaching institute managed by the Plaintiff for extracurricular lessons 26 times until December 24.

However, it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone would have attended the study of the private teaching institute of this case if the Defendant had not provided lessons to E, and it is difficult to recognize the increased management fees and the amount of expenses for A-4 sites due to the above extracurricular lessons by the Defendant, and the above argument by the Plaintiff is rejected

Rather, according to Gap evidence No. 7-1, E seems to have found the defendant from the beginning to receive the extra-choice course.

B. The plaintiff is a confidential data to be given to the defendant in the examination for academic ability.