1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is an apartment sales agent, and the Defendant A was an employee of the Plaintiff Company for the sale of apartment units from December 2014 to December 2014.

On August 2015, the Plaintiff was in charge of the sales business to C, and the Defendant B was the head of C's headquarters.

B. The Defendants committed an unlawful act that interferes with the Plaintiff’s agency business in collusion, planning to commission the Plaintiff’s agency business to C, and interfering with the Plaintiff’s agency business. The main contents are as follows.

The head of the O sales team stated that “after replacing the sales team event, he/she will be fluencing fly changing the sales team commission, advertising support, contractual terms, etc., and that the head of the team would have a good opportunity. The head of the team would not work for the employees by stating that “The head of the team would not attend his/her work in a consecutive manner after hearing the horses and attending his/her work, and that he/she would be able to attend his/her work.”

O Defendant A entered the examination of the Plaintiff Company and the executives of the Plaintiff Company in and out of the two weeks model hybrids, and made it impossible for business employees to trust the Plaintiff.

O Defendant A caused adverse effects on the Plaintiff’s sales agency by discharging confidential data, such as the contract rate of the Plaintiff Company and the distribution degree of policyholders, to the outside.

O After withdrawal from the Plaintiff Company, Defendant A provided false information to its business employees as if they were damaged and interfered with the Plaintiff’s sales business.

O After the withdrawal from the Plaintiff Company, Defendant A had D sales staff of the Plaintiff Company prepare a marketing proposal and send it by e-mail to the Plaintiff Company, and the same marketing proposal was sent to E, the contractor, E., the contractor.

C. The defendants' above B.

The plaintiff shall be paid to the sales workers because of the aggravation of the site sale conditions due to the illegal acts described in the paragraph, making it difficult for the plaintiff to recruit business employees.