1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit is resulting from the supplementary participation.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) is a corporation that employs 27,000 full-time workers and engages in the business of manufacturing the display of household appliances, etc., and was launched on July 2, 2012 after its merger with CY factories, D Co., Ltd., and E Co., Ltd.

The plaintiff became a member of F Co., Ltd. on May 25, 2005 and transferred to D Co., Ltd on September 4, 2008, and from October 2009, he was in charge of the development of physical distribution equipment at the facility development team.

Disciplinary Reason: On April 201, 201, at the request of G, the duty to release trade secrets and breach of the security regulations, sent e-mail three cases of self-injury devices bb drawings applicable to the expansion facility by ordering the Korean agent I of Germany (hereinafter “H company”) and sent three cases of self-injury devices bb drawings applicable to the expansion facility. From October 2009 to December 201, 201, 165 data, including data on the performance assessment of the Sms equipment obtained from the collaborative company, development minutes, and facility drawings, were stored without permission in his/her home PC: The notice of the Disciplinary Reason No. 3 of Article 47 of the Rules of Employment (Evidence No. 4) but it appears to be a clerical error in subparagraph 3 of the Rules of Employment.

(Standards for Dismissal of Disciplinary Action) A person who discloses or divulges a company's trade secret without permission, or a person who takes out the company's goods, technical materials, etc. without permission, an intervenor held a disciplinary committee on May 29, 2012 and took a disciplinary action against the plaintiff (hereinafter "the dismissal of this case").

On June 19, 2012, the grounds and grounds stated in the notice of the grounds for disciplinary action issued by the intervenor to the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s request are as follows.

On June 26, 2012, an intervenor held a review disciplinary committee on the Plaintiff’s request, and resolved on the dismissal of the second disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the result on the same day.

The grounds for disciplinary action and the grounds for the notification of the result of disciplinary action shall be as follows:

Grounds for Disciplinary Action: Leakage of Trade Secrets and Violation of Security Regulations to I, at the request of G on April 2011, shall be the Korean agent of the GermanH.