1. The Defendant: KRW 33,870,969 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 10, 2016 to October 12, 2018; and

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is a company that develops, produces, and sells “C” (hereinafter referred to as “instant device”) which can remove foreign substances from the surface indicated on the surface through the temperature and the former in the electrical form of flasma, and attach the functional operating device to the surface to obtain effects, such as detailedness and surface quality. Since the Defendant entered the Plaintiff on September 16, 2009, he was working as a technical research institute that researches and develops the electronic circuits among the instant devices, and has established and operated “D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) after retired from February 201.

The defendant, while working as the head of the research institute, has prepared a confidentiality contract with the purport that the defendant will strictly keep the company's secrets and not disclose the company's secrets.

Nevertheless, on February 2011, the Defendant: (a) retired the Plaintiff; (b) obtained a conviction of a fine of KRW 7 million on August 21, 2015 (Seoul District Court Branch Decision 2014Ma1034), and appealed on September 1, 2016 (Seoul District Court Decision 201Hun-Ga1034), which became final and conclusive on September 1, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “instant data”); (c) saved the instant data in Nowon-North Korea used by the D office and newly developed C, thereby obtaining pecuniary benefits and causing property damage equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff; and (d) obtained a conviction of a fine of KRW 7 million on August 21, 2015 (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Da10344); (c) filed an appeal against this, but the appeal was final and conclusive on September 1, 2016 (Seoul District Court Decision 2015No3645, May 26, 2015).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including the provisional number), the facts with this court, and the purport of the entire pleadings, alleged by the plaintiff, defendant, while retiring, has leaked the data of this case, which is the plaintiff's technical data.