1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) established and operated a mutual educational institute called CResearch Institute (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”); and (b) employed the Defendant as an instructor; and (c) concluded a labor contract around October 1, 2014.

The term of the labor contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was from October 15, 2014 to October 14, 2015, and as other matters, the Defendant agreed that “the Defendant’s duty” is “the Defendant’s act of extracurricular lessons, transfer of private teaching institutes, and establishment in the F in Bupyeong-si area without the permission of the president, and that the Defendant is legally liable to the private teaching institute for damages incurred to the private teaching institute in violation of this provision (hereinafter “the prohibition clause”).

B. On December 2014, the Defendant requested the reduction of working hours and the monthly salary grade, which was rejected by the Plaintiff, submitted to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2014, and retired the pertinent private teaching institute.

C. From January 5, 2015, the Defendant, from around January 5, 2015, provided extracurricular lessons to high school students who heard lessons at the instant private teaching institute. From March 2015, the Defendant established and operated Geo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Private Teaching Institutes.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to a claim for damages caused by a tort

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties: (a) from December 24, 2014 to February 2015, the Defendant sent to the majority of the private teaching institutes of this case the Plaintiff, the president of the instant driving school, and presented them to them; (b) the Defendant also disseminated false facts as to the Plaintiff by driving the Plaintiff at wrapping with the Plaintiff; (c) the Defendant, after the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the office, issued a false testimony as to the Plaintiff; and (d) from January 5, 2015 to March 2015, the Defendant recruited extra-party subjects by using the school students’ school students, which are trade secrets of the instant driving school under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”); and (e) the Defendant recruited extra-party subjects by taking advantage of the school students