1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. Appeal costs and interest.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases of cutting, deleting, or adding, as follows, and thus, it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used for cutting, deleting, or adding them;

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 397 (1) of the Commercial Act provides that "the prohibition of competition is violated," of Article 397 (1) of the Commercial Act shall be deleted.

B. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the first instance court determined that “the Defendant shall not engage in the business of the company listed in the separate sheet” as “the Defendant shall not engage in any transportation transaction with each company listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and shall provide or disclose each information listed in the separate sheet No. 2 to any person other than the Plaintiff.”

C. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the 5th instance court's 9th instance court's "(not evidence dissatisfy)" has been written as "(not evidence missatisfy)."

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part concerning the assertion that the non-compliance with the duty of competition under the Commercial Act is violated (see, e.g., Sections 11 through 10 of the fifth one) is deleted. E., the latter part of the judgment of the first instance is replaced by “1,” and the latter part of the judgment of the first instance is written by “1,” and the latter part is not “14.”

Then, on March 7, 2016, the District Public Prosecutor's Office, which was called ‘the next', was suspected of having committed a non-prosecution disposition against C on the charge of occupational breach of trust, violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (Disclosure of Business Secrets, etc.).

Accordingly, E filed an appeal, and the Seoul High Prosecutor's Office issued a second investigation order on May 18, 2016 only for the suspicion of occupational breach of trust against C.

After that, on October 31, 2016, the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office rendered a non-prosecution disposition again against the suspicion of occupational breach of trust against C. The applicant filed an application for a ruling with the Seoul High Court, but was notified of the rejection of the application on January 23, 2017.

Gap evidence 19, 21, Eul evidence 39, 51, 53 is added.

(f) judgment of the first instance.