1. The request is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Plaintiff 1’s assertion that the Defendant’s tort outlined the Defendant’s Defendant’s business operation from around 2009 to around June 2014, who retired from the Plaintiff’s business division, operated a competitor from July 1, 2014, and conducted the Plaintiff’s business using the Plaintiff’s trade secret, which was known to the Plaintiff while working in the Plaintiff despite the competition prohibition agreement, thereby causing loss to the Plaintiff. 2) Trade secret nature of transaction partners, raw materials unit price, and delivery unit price in the steel distribution industry: (i) the Plaintiff’s operating method in the pertinent industry and the Defendant’s steel distribution industry ordinarily operate the method of importing raw materials from the upper company to sell them to the lower company and manufacturers; (ii) unlike manufacturing industry, it is reasonable that the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s steel distribution industry operating method in the pertinent industry operate the method of importing raw materials from the upper company and selling them to the lower company and the lower company’s price increase in raw materials prices, and thus, it is reasonable that the Defendant actually demand the lower company to submit the unit price in preparation for sales products.

In addition, it is almost little that the transaction partner who has maintained the long-term transactional relationship is changing the transaction partner solely on the ground that the other distributor simply presented a lower price, and in this case, the supply price will be reduced first in the existing transaction company.