1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the Do's 10th 15th Do's 10th Do's 10th 15th Do'; (b) the 13th 9th Do's 9th Do' as '3 years'; and (c) the 3th Do's 9th Do' as 'three years' as 'three years'; and (d) the following additions the

2. Further decisions of the court of first instance are followed from 8th to 12th 6th am.

In relation to the establishment of a trade secret infringement under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the first instance court, when manufacturing new machinery, may have time and economic competitiveness by utilizing the technical information of this case, and in case of estimates, appropriate price can be presented. The technical information of this case constitutes a trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and may reduce costs and time necessary for producing the same or similar machinery using the technical information of this case. The Plaintiff managed the technical information of this case, such as the encryption of all documents and drawings and files according to the new DorcCCBrush with the authority differentiated from access to the file server, and the Plaintiff managed it as confidential because the technical information of this case constitutes a trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. In addition, the judgment below is added.

In light of the following circumstances, the technical information of this case is recognized as non-officialness in light of each of the evidence above and each of the evidence Nos. 13 and 22.

① The technical information of this case acquired by the Defendants is not known to many and unspecified persons, and it became known through an error of execution that the Plaintiff had experienced in the process of manufacturing the internal plant upon receiving an order.