1. The defendant's KRW 5,580,00 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 19, 2020 to December 11, 2020 for the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is running a private teaching institute business that gives lectures to elementary, middle, and high school students under the trade name, “D” (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”) on the seventh floor of the Daegu-gun Seoul Building Co., Ltd.

The Defendant received basic remuneration and piece rates from the Plaintiff from December 2, 2013 to December 2016, and worked as an instructor at the instant private teaching institute.

B. On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the appointment of instructors (hereinafter “instant contract for the appointment of instructors”) with the term of contract “from February 3, 2016 to February 2, 2017,” with the term of contract “from February 3, 2016 to February 2, 2017”; the term of the lecture “hymology”; the basic remuneration is “2.4 million won per month”; the term of the lecture as the performance-based bonus for 50,000 won per person when the number of students exceeds 20,000 won (hereinafter “the instant contract for the appointment of instructors”).

C. Article 8 of the instant contract for the appointment of instructors provides for the defendant's duty of confidentiality, etc. as follows.

Article 8 (Maintenance of Confidential Information) (3) The defendant shall maintain the confidential information of a private teaching institute that he/she acquired on duty (the matters related to the private teaching institute and students, the school learning materials, etc.) during the contract period as well as even after the termination of the contract. If the disclosure or use of confidential information causes damage to the plaintiff

(4) No defendant shall be engaged in employment and business within 3km in the radius of a driving school after the contract is terminated.

In addition, the outflow of students who come to know through a private teaching institute is prohibited by emitting them, and conducting lessons outside the private teaching institute.

In the case of a route, the plaintiff shall be liable for damages and legal liability.

Around December 2016, the Defendant retired from the private teaching institute of this case; however, the Defendant’s withdrawal from the private teaching institute of this case is called “the task log of this case” stating matters concerning the private teaching institute of this case and students.

The files have been carried out.

E. On March 31, 2017, the Defendant: E, F, G, H, I, and I, who took one’s own education lectures in the instant private teaching institute through the Kakakao Stockholm Group or Detainment Room around March 31, 201.