Whether an application for the confidentiality order against a trade secret can be accepted by asserting that another party, etc. unlawfully acquired and used the trade secret in a lawsuit infringing trade secrets (negative)

Article 14-4 (1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

Sk-line Doz. (Bae & Yang LLC, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Order 2014Kao341 dated June 20, 2014

The reappeal is dismissed.

Article 14-4(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act”) provides that a court may issue an order to maintain confidentiality to the other party (in cases of a corporation, its representative), a person who represents the party in a lawsuit on behalf of the party, and other persons who have become aware of the trade secret in the course of the lawsuit concerned, as to the infringement of business profit through the infringement of trade secret infringement, and that in the proviso, it shall not apply where, however, the other party (in cases of a corporation, its representative), a person who represents the party in the lawsuit on behalf of the party, or any other person who has become aware of the trade secret in the course of the lawsuit concerned has already acquired the trade secret by means other than the perusal of preparatory documents or the examination of evidence

The purpose of an order to maintain confidentiality under the above provision is to protect trade secrets disclosed in a litigation procedure, and the trade secrets already acquired by other parties, etc. regardless of the legal procedure, are not related to the above purpose, and thus, the application for the order to maintain confidentiality against the trade secrets asserted that the other parties, etc. illegally acquired and used the trade secrets in a litigation seeking trade secrets

According to the records, the re-appellant filed a lawsuit against the non-applicant 1 and the same Jinna Act, claiming damages against the non-applicant 1 and the same Jinna Act, claiming that the information related to the written work order, which is a trade secret acquired by the non-applicant 1 while serving as the employee of the re-appellant, was disclosed to the same Jinna Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Dongjinra Act"), and the same Jinna Act infringed on the re-appellant's trade secret by acquiring and using it. The re-appellant filed a lawsuit against the non-applicant 1 and the same Jinna Act, claiming damages. The re-appellant submitted the abstract copy of the work order in the above lawsuit as the evidence No. 34 and filed a request for the order to maintain the confidentiality of this case with respect to "the whole document except for Work INX."

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the re-appellant applied for the confidentiality order on the trade secret, i.e., the information on the trade secret subject to the application of the confidentiality order, i.e., the information on the work order, and the same fact-finding camp, claiming that the non-applicant 2

Therefore, the court below is just in rejecting the order to maintain confidentiality of this case, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of reappeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements and procedures of the order to maintain confidentiality, failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or violating the legal principles as to the right to a prompt trial and the guarantee of property rights,

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)