2011Gaz. 34076 Nos. 34076 and damages, etc.

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Jeong Young-hun, Park Tae-hoon, Park Jong-soo, and Hanyang, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm Jinsu, Attorney Lee Chang-han, and Oink

Pception 1. B

2. C.

3. D.

4. E.

5. F;

6. G.

[Judgment of the court below] Defendant 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Lee & Lee, Attorney Lee Jae-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Law Firm (L) Won, Attorneys Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, and Park Jong-hee

Defendant 1. 2. Attorney Jeon Byung-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Defendant 1. Law Firm (LLC, Kim Jae-soo, Attorneys Kim Jae-in and Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

January 15, 2015

February 12, 2015

Text

1. The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 5.5 billion won with 5% interest per annum from January 1, 2013 to February 12, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 95% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants, in manufacturing each product listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 list, are from the time of this judgment to December 2, 2017.

31. No technical information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 shall be used, and each such technical information shall be used.

shall not disclose to a third party for the same period, and for the same period each such product has been produced.

no request for production shall be made, and for each existing product, the transfer of such product, the sale of such product;

shall not sell, lend, provide security, or export, and each plaintiff shall be entitled to 70 billion won

As from May 1, 2012 to March 13, 2014 of this case, a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim is served.

It shall pay 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The party's status 1) Defendant B Co., Ltd. (the first trade name was ****, but it was changed to the current trade name on September 3, 2009, hereinafter "Defendant Co., Ltd.") from around 2007 to the Plaintiff, and supply each body of the body from the Plaintiff, from around 007 to the 000 (hereinafter "the 000 Embio Embio Special Empic LLC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the Embio Special LLC"), which is a Chinese subsidiary, and sold the Embio Special Embio Special LLC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the Embio Special LLC"), and Defendant C Co., Ltd. was installed in the imported vehicle in China. (2) Defendant D Co., Ltd. and the Embio Special LLC is the actual operator of the Defendant Co., Ltd. and the Embio Special Si.

********* while working in Korea, the Plaintiff was employed from around June 2008 to around March 201, 208 ****** the head office (hereinafter referred to as “****”)******** the head office of the Plaintiff’s company’s production from around July 1, 2008 to around October 2009, the Plaintiff was employed as the Plaintiff’s production director from around 2009 to around 300 to around 2010 as the Plaintiff’s production director from around 209 to around 2010 to around 2010 as the Plaintiff’s production director. Defendant company’s research and development work as the Plaintiff’s production director.

B. The Plaintiff was selected as a development company of Asian gas products, which will be installed on a vehicle model : around June 2008, *** *** * * an Asian gas (e.g., straw-type 1), which is installed on a vehicle in the model 351. The Plaintiff was selected as a development company of Asian gas products. The Plaintiff started the development from September 8, 2008 ** * Nisclos Agre, abbreviatedly called 'NDA' (* * the development of Asian gas-type * the technical information related to the Asian gas development from the company or prepared a modified technical information related to the experimental development after consultation with the company * 200 Asia) and completed the development from the company * 30 Asia and its final development from the company * 20 Asia and its final development from the company * 20 Asia.

** * 351 is set up and sold on a model vehicle.

C. When Defendant C knew on November 208 that the Plaintiff was scheduled to develop and directly sell Asia, around November 2008, Defendant C instructed Kim Hong, who was working as the representative director of the Defendant Company, to develop the same kind of company as the Plaintiff. Kim Hong included Defendant D, working for the Plaintiff Company, and provided the Plaintiff with data related to the development of the Plaintiff’s Asia, and the development of the solution will take charge of 000, but Defendant E, F, and G had Defendant E, F, and G direct and supervise it.

2) From March 2009 to March 2010, Defendant D disclosed technical information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “technical information of this case”) to Defendant E and F, as well as ********* the Defendant Company provided the said technical information to 000 by means of transmitting, by e-mail, technical information necessary for the development of recreation to be installed on a vehicle model 351. The Defendant Company provided the said information to 00. 00 by using it, after completing the development of RO - 700 (L) (hereinafter referred to as “L”) from May 2010 to August 2010, 2010, * 371 plenary session from around August 2010 to August 37, 2010, * 51 of China's export* * 51 of China's model model* * 51 of China's export*

D. The Defendant Company’s SN - 400CL special city for the development of the 400CL * on May 11, 2010 ** entered into a confidentiality agreement with the company *. The Defendant Company commenced the development of SN-40CL , and started the development on January 25, 201, and exported to China from the commencement of the mass production *** * 351 modeled vehicles.

E. Defendant Company’s SN - 420NL, SN - 430NL development1) concluded a confidentiality agreement with the Defendant Company on September 1, 201 ****, commenced the development of SN-420 NL, and completed the development on July 2012, 201, * * * * * * * * * * 351 model on May 24, 2012, * * * NAN on the development of vehicles with the intention of 2014 * from June 2012, * 420 NL * 306 NL * 306 NL * 430.

(f) final and conclusive criminal judgments against Defendant C, D, E, and F;

Defendant C, D, E, and F were indicted under the Seoul Central District Court 201 order 610 order6, 201 order 2672 (combined) for criminal facts that infringed on the technical information of this case. Defendant C and D were sentenced to imprisonment on October 4, 2012, one year and six months in prison, one year and six years in prison, and two years in prison, and two years in prison, and two years in prison, respectively. Defendant C and D filed an appeal under the above court 2012No3500, and on February 19, 2013, Defendant C and D were sentenced to imprisonment for one year and four years in prison, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

G. The technical information of this case (hereinafter referred to as "technical information of No. 1 or No. 32") Nos. 1 through 8 of [Attachment 1] No. 1 of the technical information of this case (hereinafter referred to as "technical information of this case") is the test method and test results necessary to verify whether the contents of the technical information of this case meet the specifications, such as high temperature, low temperature, and heat shock, and the test results; the technical information of No. 9 is the data on the photograph of the sampling of Japanese-type Asia and the external connection for the use of the hardware; the power source block map designed to minimize the use of electricity for minimizing the relevant hardware to be deemed No. 10 technology; the technological information of No. 11 meets the quantity of Asia, and the data on the test methods, etc. necessary to verify whether the durability complies with the quantity of Asia; the data on the performance and the final technology of No. 12 of the Japan-type 1 and the result of the Japan-type 14 of the final process, etc. related to the performance of the Asia-type No.

*** * Data on Interconnection between monitors developed in Bosh adopted on the model vehicle and various human system in the vehicle, 15, 21 technical information ***** * * * * * the data on the requirements of the used vehicle software installed in the company, 16 technical information on the motion scenarios to minimize the consumption of vehicles due to the use of the company, 17 through 19 technical information on vehicles, 20 technical information * * * * * * based on the data written in the company * * data on the specifications of the vehicle and the internal parts of the vehicle necessary for the exchange of signals ; 20 technical information on the specifications of the vehicle and the mobile parts in the vehicle ; * 222-technical information on the arrangements of the operated vehicle * 3-technical information on the specifications of the vehicle and the mobile parts in the vehicle * 4-technical information applied to the development of the plaintiff.

*** Data on telecommunications protocol applied to model vehicles of 351, 25 through 27 technical information is data on communication protocol system and Asia, * data on compatibility with other devices of the company ** technical information on the plaintiff's sampling product, 28 through 31 technical information is data on the plaintiff's sampling test and its requirements, ****** after the conclusion of the confidentiality agreement with the company *** The technical information of this case is made in consultation with the company **** in the course of developing the Asia-Korea-Korea-Korea-Korea-Japan-Japan-UA-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's 1 through 3, 8, 10, 13 through 16, 24, 26, 28, 33 through 38, 41, 44, 46, 52, 55 through 59, 61 through 63, 70, 71 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff;

1) Defendant C instructed Kim Hong to develop an in-house manufactured goods such as the Plaintiff’s in- Asia, and Kim Hong included Defendant D, who is an employee of the Plaintiff Company, and entered Defendant E, F, and G. After that, Defendant D leaked leaked the instant technological information according to Defendant C and Kim Hong’s instructions; Defendant Company developed and sold each product listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) using the instant technological information leaked as above, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s trade secret.

2) The Defendant Company, through the above infringement of the Plaintiff’s trade secrets, made operating profits from 2010 to 2013 as described below.

(unit: source)

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff is seeking a prohibition and prevention claim against the Defendants as to the infringement of trade secrets. From the time this judgment was rendered to December 31, 2017, when manufacturing each product of the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff sought a prohibition of use of technical information of this case, prohibition of disclosure of technical information of this case, prohibition of request for the manufacture or manufacture of each product of the Defendant Company, and prohibition of the transfer, sale, lease, provision of security, and export of each product of the Defendant Company that had been previously produced, and sought compensation for damages, for operating income of KRW 151,08,452,980, which is part of the Defendant Company’s operating income from 2010 to 2013.

B. The Defendants 1) The technical information of the instant case was concluded between the Defendant Company and North Gyeong-si** * on May 2010, which was concluded between the company and the company.

10. On September 1, 201, which was concluded between the Convention on the Confidentiality and the Defendant Company,** through the confidentiality agreement between the company and the company,*** was provided with the same technical information from the company ********** disclosed after July 2010, the contents of the instant technical information are released, thereby loss of the non-public nature as a trade secret. 2) Of the technical information of this case, the Plaintiff*********’s exclusive property cannot be viewed as the Plaintiff’s trade secret. The remainder of the materials produced by the Plaintiff was used only for the Plaintiff’s products of the Defendant Company *** the technical information acquired through reverse design of the company * the technical information of this case, and the Plaintiff’s technical information was not used independently by the investigation agency* 406 N. 40 and 4106 N. N. 420, N. 140, and 406, respectively.

2. Determination as to whether trade secrets are infringed

(a) Whether it falls under trade secrets;

1) Relevant legal principles

The "trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is not known to the public and has independent economic value, and it refers to the production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which is maintained in secret by considerable effort. The "non-public nature" means that information cannot be obtained from a holder without going through a holder because it is not known to many and unspecified persons, such as the fact that information is realizing on the media, such as publications, etc.

The term "a secret" means a state in which it is recognizable that the information holder has been maintained and managed objectively secret, such as marking or notifying a person who has access to the information or a method of access to the information, or imposing a person who has access to the information, with a duty to maintain confidentiality, that the information is maintained and managed as secret by considerable effort (see Supreme Court Decision 201Hun-Ga7, July 201).

14. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12528, supra)

2) The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of the evidence presented earlier, namely, ① the technical information of this case was produced by the Plaintiff through consultation with the Plaintiff after the commencement of the construction work in Asia and ******** the production of sampling products, their test, specifications, software specifications, ***** History's requirements, ② the Plaintiff has modified samples and *******’s technical information of this case including various know-how formed in the process, ③ the confidential information of this case, ③ the Plaintiff concluded a confidential agreement with the Asia** the confidential information of this case* the other party to this case* the confidential information of this case* the non-technical information of this case* the non-technical information of this case* the non-technical information of this case* the non-technical information of this case* the non-technical information of this case* the non-technical information of this case* the non-technical information of this case* the non-technical information of this case* other party to this case* the non-technical information of this case* the non-technical information of this case* the non-technical information of this case*.

Although the confidentiality agreement was concluded between the North-si and the North-si, the content of the confidentiality agreement *** the company does not provide all or part of the technical information of this case to the defendant company.

**** because it is merely prohibited from disclosing information provided by the company (*** the Defendants provided part of the necessary information after a considerable period of time from the commencement of the development of SN - 400CL) *** The purpose of the confidentiality agreement is to prevent the Defendants from divulging the technical information of this case to third parties. Thus, the above confidentiality agreement was concluded and the Defendants cannot be deemed to have published the technical information of this case acquired before the conclusion of the confidentiality agreement. ***** * * * Model Model of 351 was released on May 2010, the Plaintiff’s exclusive technological information of this case collected during the development process is not deemed to have been disclosed in all of the technical information of this case* The Plaintiff could not be deemed to have lost its own technological information of this case as well as the technological information of this case, even if it was disclosed in the Asia, and the Plaintiff’s exclusive technological information of this case * even if it was difficult to obtain the technical information of this case by means of reverse design.

4) Comprehensively taking into account the facts acknowledged prior to the recognition of confidentiality, the overall purport of the arguments before the evidence, i.e., the following circumstances that can be recognized, namely, ①****’s confidentiality agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, ②*****’s standard data and software specifications provided by the company were a policy to prevent the divulgence of confidential information under the premise that the specifications and software specifications provided by the company are trade secrets. ② The Plaintiff’s rules of employment prohibit the divulgence of confidential information learned in the course of business, ② the Plaintiff’s security education for employees was conducted, ③ the Plaintiff’s research institute in charge of the development of In Asia, can have access to separate cards, and security management was conducted so that access can be conducted by installing CCTVs, etc.

5) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the technical information of this case is a trade secret under Article 2 (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

B. Whether trade secrets were infringed

Article 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "the act of acquiring trade secrets by means of theft, deception, threat or other improper means, or the act of using or disclosing such trade secrets (including informing any specific person of such information while maintaining the trade secrets; hereinafter the same shall apply)"; "the act of acquiring trade secrets or using or disclosing such secrets without knowing the fact that an act of improper acquisition was involved in the trade secrets or without knowing such fact due to gross negligence"; "the act of using or disclosing the trade secrets to the owner of the trade secrets in accordance with a contractual relationship, etc."; "the act of using or disclosing the trade secrets for the purpose of obtaining unjust profits or causing damage to the owner of the trade secrets"; "the act of disclosing the trade secrets in item (e) of the same Article provides that "the act of acquiring or disclosing such trade secrets without knowing the fact that the trade secrets are disclosed in accordance with item (d) or the fact that such disclosure was involved or without knowing such fact by gross negligence."

In the instant case, as seen earlier, Defendant D, who works for the Plaintiff Company and is obligated to maintain the trade secret, delivered the instant technical information corresponding to the Plaintiff’s trade secret to Defendant E and F without the Plaintiff’s permission from March 2009 to March 2010. ② Defendant C, E, F, and G knowingly acquired the instant technical information delivered as above, while Defendant C, E, F, and G knowingly acquired the instant technological information, ③ made and sold the instant technology information using the instant technological information as seen in subparagraph 4(a) below, as seen in Article 2 subparag. 3(a), (b), (d), and (e) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Such Defendants’ act constitutes trade secret infringement.

3. Determination on the prohibition and prevention claims

A. Prohibition of infringement of trade secrets during the protection period of the trade secrets of this case is to prevent an infringer from taking advantage of the superior position of the fair competitor or time saving, and to enable the infringer to return the trade secrets to the original location without such infringement. Thus, prohibition of infringement of trade secrets should be limited to the time limit necessary for ensuring fair and free competition and for accomplishing the purpose of protecting the trust relationship between the person holding the trade secrets. In determining the scope, the contents and degree of infringement of trade secrets should be limited to the time limit necessary for securing technology information and difficulty, the period and expenses required for acquiring technology information of the person holding the trade secrets, the time and method required for maintaining the trade secrets, the time and time required for obtaining such technical information by independent development or reverse design, and if the infringer or other fair competitor is an employee (including retirement), the period of duty or position subordinate to the employer, the degree of access to the trade secrets, the living and agreement within the trade secret protection zone, the freedom of employee's living and business activities, and the protection of intellectual property rights, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da29798, supra.).

B. In the instant case, the facts acknowledged earlier, and the overall purport of the Plaintiff’s arguments, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s commencement of construction work around September 8, 2008 and completion of development work around March 201; ② Defendant D *** * 351 company’s employment in the company, and the Plaintiff’s use of the Plaintiff’s trade secret as well as the Plaintiff’s trade secret development-related business from 0.0 billion won to 3 companies. If the Plaintiff’s use of the Plaintiff’s trade secret in the instant case, the Plaintiff’s use of the Plaintiff’s trade secret in the instant case’s new technology development-related business from 10.3 years to 10 years to 17 years to 3 years to 20 years to 3 years to 17 months to 3 months to 3 months to 1, the Plaintiff’s use of the Plaintiff’s trade secret development-related business, and the Plaintiff’s use of the Plaintiff’s new technology-related business model* is more likely to develop the Plaintiff’s new technology-related business information than 1*.

4. Determination as to the claim for damages

A. Whether the instant technical information has been used in the development of the solution to compensate for losses (1)

The facts that the Defendants developed the recreation using the technical information of this case do not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 16 and No. 46.

2) SN - Whether the instant technical information has been used in the development of 400CL

With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants developed SN - 400CL using the instant technological information, the Defendants merely developed SN - 400CL using the data received from *** 400CL, and did not use the instant technological information.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in the evidence Nos. 6, 8, 20, 81, 162, 176, and 242 of Eul, the defendant company entered into a contract for the transfer of business with a DNA personnel on May 11, 2010 *** the agreement for the maintenance of confidentiality between the company and the company * around June 23, 2010 ** the delivery of vehicle's data files from the company H ** The defendant company entered into a contract for the transfer of business with a DNA personnel around August 20, 2010.

1. The 10 researchers of DNA personnel form an internal recreation development team; Defendant D has been provided from H on October 20, 2010, the latest EMC (Electiccompatiability, electromagnetic suitability); DPR (Degrre - Red Cross) and its compressed files; EMC - CSS - 2010 JL - 2010 JL - Doz. 'Autostrastrastras 2010 (10 October 15, 2010), 'Autostrastras 200, 'MM 100, 'M 2000, 'M 100, 1500, 'M 200, 'M 25,000, 'M 25,000,000,000).

However, the above facts, evidence No. 55, and the following circumstances that can be seen as the whole for the Plaintiff’s oral argument, namely, ① the content of confidentiality (Evidence No. 6) on May 1, 201, rather than simply providing the Defendant with all or part of the technical information of this case **** the information file (Evidence No. 20) sent to Defendant D on June 22, 2010 *** 351 model, not only the information that the Defendants acquired from 0 or 20 model, but also the information that the Defendants acquired from 5 or 20 model * 1 or 20 model * 5 or model 5 or model 4 or model 20 or model 1 or model 5 or model 5 or model 20 or model 1 or model 1 or model 1 or model 20 or model * 20 or model 4 or model 20 or model 20 or model 3 or model 20.

*** 351 Modeled Vehicle was disclosed for the first time on March 2010 and sold from May 2010. As such, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants could obtain all the instant technical information by analyzing the said vehicle before completing the development of SN-400CL. 7 The Defendants asserted that the instant technical information could no longer be used as it was seized on or around June 4, 2010. However, the Defendants asserted that the technical information of this case was no longer available on or around March 4, 2012, as the Defendants were informed by JL from the “WL” prepared around March 3, 2012, it is difficult for the Defendants to assert that the technology information of this case was no longer available on or at the bottom of the “ODR 210 CDA 2101 CNDA”).

As a result, the term internal recreation is mainly related to the specifications such as **** 351 model vehicle operation so that an image can be printed out from the display panel installed on the above vehicle ********* * * * *351 model vehicle data, and the KONEX connected to the vehicle. It is difficult to understand that the Defendant Company was seized by the investigative agency because it stored only one of the above technical information, and there was no information remaining thereafter. 8 In particular, the Defendants did not actually develop SN 40CL until 10 researchers of Dcoon on September 1, 2010.

5. 11.1.*** from the standpoint of the defendant company that entered into a confidentiality agreement with the company, the above researchers appear to have requested the provision of information necessary for the development of recreation even before the combination of the above researchers even before the seizure and use of all the technical information of this case ******** after the combination of the above researchers, as recognized above ****** after the provision of some information necessary for the development of recreation from the company, and immediately after the completion of the development of SN-40cL, the defendants' above assertion is difficult to believe (the defendants from August 10, 201 to December 12, 2012).

Although the defendant company alleged that it obtained information through reverse analysis of the vehicle without requesting information in ************ There is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendants received all technical information necessary for SN - 400CL development from the technical information of this case, and ② even in the process of developing SN - 40CL ***** even if some of the technical information was provided by the company, it seems that the defendants illegally acquired the technical information of this case was considerably reduced the development period.**** * in the process of developing SN - 40CL, the defendants can be presumed to have lawfully used the technical information of this case in developing SN - 40CL, and the facts recognized earlier are insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants independently used the technical information of this case - 40 NN - 340 NN - 40, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants developed the technology information of this case -4040 NN -340.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement of evidence Nos. 39, 77, 84, 245, 252 through 259, 263 through 265, 269, 271 through 274, 277 through 279, 281 through 285, and 295 of the Republic of Korea, the whole purport of the arguments is as follows: *** send a written request for estimation to the defendant company on August 30, 201 when requesting the development of SN-420NL, and the fact that the confidentiality agreement has been concluded with the defendant company on September 1, 201; ** the technical specifications for the FluV test on December 2, 2011; and * the DPR is sent on December 1, 2011.

내비게이션 최종 사양서와 DR기능 ( Dead Reckoning, 추측항법 기능 ) 추가를 위한 차량 장착각도에 관한 자료를 보냈으며, 2012. 3. 12. 및 같은 달 13. * * 351 및 * * 250 모델 차량에 대한 최신 CAN 데이터를 제공한 사실, 피고 회사는 DR 및 3D 지도, 자체진단 기능이 포함된 내비게이션인 SN - 420NL에 대하여 EMC ( 전자파 적합성 ) 테스트, DV ( 설계제품 검증 ) 테스트, PV ( 양산제품 검증 ) 테스트 등을 마치고 2012. 8. 19. * * * 사로부터 최종 승인을 받은 사실, SN - 430NL은 PCV ( Phone Connectivity Viewer ) 모듈과의 연동, 기존 MS _ CAN ( Middle Speed CAN ) 통신라인 외에 HS _ CAN ( High Speed CAN ) 사용기능 등이 포함된 내비게이션으로서 * * * 사가 2012. 5. 24. 피고 회사에 개발을 의뢰하면서 변경되거나 추가해야 할 사항에 대한 기술설명자료와 제품변경요청서를 송부한 사실, H은 2012. 4. 25. 피고 회사에 SN - 430NL 개발과 관련하여 CAN 데이터와 자가 진단 사양서를 보낸 사실, * * * 사는 2012. 6. 28. 피고 회사에 차량 자가진단에 관한 사양서를, 2012. 8. 31. 2014년식 차량의 CAN 데이터 등을, 2012. 11. 8. 2014년식 및 2015년식 차량에 대한 최신 CAN 데이터를, 2012. 11. 14. 커텍터 사양서를 각 제공한 사실, 피고 회사는 2013. 3. 26. SN - 430NL의 일부 모델에 대한 * * * 사의 승인을 받았고, 그 후 2013년말까지 SN - 430NL의 다른 모델에 대하여도 * * * 사의 승인을 받은 사실, 한편 * * * 사가 2011. 8. 30. 자 견적의뢰서에 첨부하여 보낸 파일 중 ' Device Transmittal. pdf 파일 ( * * * 사는 2012. 11. 14. 에도 SN - 430NL의 개발과 관련하여 같은 파일을 보낸 것으로 보인다 ) 은 이 사건 제23기술정보와, ' Asia navigation module integration spec 1 _ 0draft. doc ', ' Asia navigation module integration spec 2 _ odraft. doc ' 파일은 이 사건 제26, 27기술정보와, ' LVDS Interface Requirement Specification. doc ' 파일은 이 사건 제32기술정보와 각각 동일 또는 유사한 기술내용을 포함하고 있는 사실, * * * 사가 2010. 11. 10. 발송한 ' X351 _ 10MY _ IP10 _ 1 _ MSCAN. dbc ' 파일, 2012. 3. 12. 발송한 ' X351 _ 13MY _ IP10W45 _ MS _ CAN. dbc ' 파일 등은 모두 * * 351 모델 차량의 CAN 데이터 관련 파일인 사실, * * * 사가 SN - 430NL 내비게이션의 개발을 위하여 2012. 9. 28. 발송한 ' SWRS _ NCM. Doc ' 파일은 이 사건 제15기술정보와 동일한 내용을 포함하고 있는 사실, 피고 회사는 * * * 사로부터 SN - 420NL 개발비용으로 2012 .

9. It may be recognized that USD 860, 120 was paid, SN - USD 612,088 on July 18, 2012, and USD 353 on November 27, 2012 as development costs, and USD 353 on November 26, 2012.

The above facts of recognition, that is, the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire arguments, i.e., SN - 420 NL, SN - 430 NL *** the development upon the request of the company *** * * there is no ground to believe that the Plaintiff has a preferential right or an exclusive right, and ** * even though the Plaintiff had already been selected as a developing company in Asia, the Defendant Company is superior in terms of technical power or price competitiveness compared to the Plaintiff.

(6) SN - 4 of the Plaintiff’s technological information that the Defendants would appear to have requested development of 420 SN - 430 NN - the Defendant Company would have been provided with technical information and development costs necessary for developing SN - 420 SN - SN - 420 SN - 430 NN - 2 of the instant technical information that the Defendants would not have been provided for development of 40 KN - 2 of the instant technical information in the process of developing SN - 420 NN - 2 of the instant technical information that the Defendants would not have been provided for development of 40 KN - 3 of the instant technical information that the Defendants would not have been provided for 20 GN - 430 NN - from SN 2 of the instant case? It appears that there would have been no longer available technical information for the Defendant Company to develop 420 GN -430 NN -1 of the instant case?

B. 1) The Defendants are liable to compensate for damages due to the sales of the Defendant Company’s internal recreation sales (the sales of the Defendant Company’s internal recreation sales). The sales from the sales of 400CL amounting to KRW 57,180,798,356 in total as indicated below.

B) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the sales revenue of the Defendant Company is KRW 967,269,60 in the case of 2010 (Quantity 495), KRW 91,342,492, 560 in the case of 2011 (Quantity 50,994), and KRW 135,863, 762,760 in the case of 2012 ($ 75,849 in the case of 2012), the Plaintiff’s assertion that this is insufficient to recognize the sales revenue of the Defendant Company. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

2) Whether the damages under Article 14-2 (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act are calculated

According to Article 14-2 (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, where a person whose business interests are infringed by an act of unfair competition or infringement of trade secrets claims compensation for damages under Article 5 or 11, the profits gained by the infringer through the act of infringement shall be presumed to be the amount of damages suffered by the person whose business interests are infringed.

The Plaintiff asserted that the operating profit ratio of the Defendant Company was 17% in the case of the year 2010, 61% in the case of the year 2011 and 2012, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 56 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Furthermore, the technical information of the instant case is mainly pertaining to the tamper of the navigation, and the sales amount is for the entire structure, and it is practically impossible to accurately calculate the percentage of the tamper. among them.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's assertion that the amount of damages should be calculated pursuant to Article 14-2 (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

3) Calculation of damages under Article 14-2(5) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

According to Article 14-2(5) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, if it is extremely difficult to prove the amount of damage due to the nature of the fact in question, the court shall hold all pleadings and the result of examination of evidence, although damage was incurred due to unfair competition.

reasonable amount of damages can be recognized.

On the other hand, the facts of recognition as above, and the following circumstances which can be acknowledged by the Defendants comprehensively based on the purport of the statement in the evidence No. 25 and the entire arguments as follows: (i) the developments leading up to the Defendants’ acquisition of technical information of this case; (ii) the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s navigation in Asia until the Defendants developed the recreation using the technical information of this case; (iv) the Defendant Company sold in China *** * * 351 model vehicle in China * * not only the violation of the technical information of this case but also other factors such as the Defendant Company’s operating power, etc. (in addition to the acquisition of the technical information of this case by the Defendants, if there were no other factors other than the acquisition of the technical information of this case by the Defendants, * the Plaintiff, which was first selected by the Defendant Company * even after the Plaintiff’s development of the recreation, the period of contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants * even after the expiration of the term of contract * 308 years thereafter.

***** Although it has been supplied in Asia to the company,*** as the company providing a third-party company with better conditions with technical information necessary for internal recreation development. In this respect, the possibility of altering the supplier may not be ruled out. In this regard, the plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff would not have been able to exclusively supply the technical information of this case by December 31, 2017, ***** in China without the defendants' infringement of the technical information of this case is not acceptable), the sales amount of the defendant company, the contribution rate in the development of the technical information of this case, the contribution rate in the development of the technology information of this case, the amount of the defendant company's deposit the plaintiff on December 5, 2012, and deposit 200 million won.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendants are entitled to the plaintiff 5 billion won and the plaintiff 5 billion won, as claimed by the plaintiff.

From January 13, 2013, the defendant is obligated to pay 5% per annum under the Civil Act until February 12, 2015, which is the date the judgment of this court is rendered, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

For judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Lee E-bok

Judges Hwang Jong-il

1) The durability installed on an imported vehicle can be divided into VN inclusion and be used mainly in the form of gambling.

VN, which is divided into a eromatic solution and a eronomic plate converting a eronomic into a digital version.

On the other hand, gambling is integrated into digital information by all actions.

2) For the year 201 and 2012, SN - 400CL and SN - 420 NL sales (sale volume).

3) As to the amount of damages incurred until December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from January 1, 2013.

4) 'Plaintiff 'A' who prepared Nos. 20 and 23' *** 'A'.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.