[1] The case holding that technical information related to the manufacture of excessive machinery by the manufacturer of the pen equipment constitutes a trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

[2] Contents of "illegal means" under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

[3] Article 2 subparagraph 3 (d) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "the duty to maintain trade secrets as confidential by contract relations, etc."

[4] The case holding that the act of acquiring technical information corresponding to the trade secret as an employee of the writing body manufacturer constitutes a trade secret infringement under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (d) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act by disclosing the technical information in the company to the public and making the product using it

[5] The case holding that other company's act under the above / [4] constitutes a trade secret infringement under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

[6] Where a person who acquired a trade secret before the enforcement of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act discloses the trade secret after the enforcement of the same Act, whether the Unfair Competition Prevention Act applies (affirmative)

[7] The intent of recognizing the right to prohibit infringement of trade secrets and the criteria for recognizing the prohibition period

[8] The case holding that an act of a person who acquired a trade secret does not constitute an act of infringement of trade secret itself, but if a person committed an act of infringement of trade secret using a trade secret as stated in the set, the set constitutes "the act of infringement of trade secret" that can be ordered to be destroyed

[9] The method of hearing to order the destruction of "goods that caused infringement of trade secrets"

[1] The case holding that the technology information of 10 chemical items, products, and colors, which are the raw materials of excessive manufacturing, is one of the most important management factors, and where the technology information is short, 2 years in which the technology information is short, 32 years in which it is used, and 90% or more in products of production, and it is actually used in products of more than 90% in which the technology information is in substantial economic value as a key element of the business of the company possessing the technology information, and it is hard to understand the contents of the product as well as its employees' research or management, and the company has a separate research institute within a factory so that all employees can not have access to the relevant place, and it has a duty to maintain such secrets, and it is not possible to analyze the technology information of this case or obtain the technology information of this case under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, even if it is not possible to obtain the technology information of this case by strictly managing such technology information.

[2] "Unlawful means" referred to in the former part of Article 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act refers not only to acts constituting crimes under the Criminal Act, such as theft, deception, threat, etc., but also to all acts or means against good morals and other social order corresponding to the above acts in light of the principles of sound trade order such as violation of confidentiality or inducement of such violation.

[3] "Duty to maintain trade secrets as confidential by contract relationship, etc." under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (d) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act includes not only the existence of the contract but also the case where the contract is explicitly agreed to bear the duty to maintain confidentiality by contract, but also the case where it is deemed that the contract is agreed to assume such duty according to the good faith principle or impliedly in light of the characteristics of personal trust relationship.

[4] The case holding that in the case where a person who acquired technical information that constitutes trade secrets as a laboratory director of a pen body takes profits such as receiving higher benefits from another company even after retirement under the principle of trust and good faith despite his/her contractual relationship and duty to maintain confidentiality, while making the other company obtain excessive benefits from time and economic perspective by using such technical information, such act was committed for the purpose of obtaining unjust gains contrary to good customs and other social order in light of the principle of fair competition, and thus, it constitutes a violation of the duty to maintain trade secrets under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (d) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, since it was committed for the purpose of obtaining unjust gains contrary to good customs and other social order in light of the principle of fair competition.

[5] The case holding that in the above paragraph (4), the company's act of having a laboratory site constitutes an act of improper acquisition of trade secrets under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

[6] An act of independently using trade secrets acquired prior to the enforcement of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act after the enforcement of the same Act is allowed pursuant to the latter part of Article 2 of the Addenda to the same Act, but it is not allowed to disclose

[7] The purpose of prohibiting infringement of trade secrets is to prevent an infringer from taking advantage of the superior position of "heat" or "hour saving time" as a result of such infringement, and to allow the owner of the trade secrets to return the trade secrets to the original location without such infringement. Thus, the prohibition of infringement of trade secrets shall be limited to the time necessary for the infringer or other fair competitors to acquire the trade secrets by the lawful method such as independent development or reverse design within the necessary time limit, taking into account the rapid development of technology and the personal and material facilities of the infringer as well as the situation where the infringement is necessary to achieve this objective, and the prohibition of the infringement of trade secrets shall be limited to the time necessary for the infringer or other fair competitors to obtain the trade secrets by such legitimate methods as independent development or reverse design, and shall not only be limited to the punitive character, but also to encourage free competition and to enable employees to exercise their knowledge and ability.

[8] The case holding that if a person employed by a trade secret owner and obtained the trade secret itself does not constitute an act of infringement of trade secret, but if the other company commits an act of infringement of trade secret using the trade secret listed in the set, the set constitutes an act of infringement of trade secret under Article 10 (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, if there is a concern that the act of infringement of trade secret will continue, it may be ordered to discard the set.

[9] The destruction of "goods that have caused infringement of trade secrets" should be ordered to the owner or the person who has the authority to dispose of the trade secrets after disclosing whether they exist.

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act / [3] Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act / [5] Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act / [6] Article 2 of the Addenda to the Unfair Competition Prevention Act / [7] Article 10 (1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act / [8] Article 10 (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act / [9] Article 10 (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

Mana Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kang Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Micrommix Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na14420 delivered on February 29, 1996

The part of the judgment of the court below against the Defendants ordering the destruction of set forth in the order is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Plaintiff’s appeal and the remainder of the Defendants’ appeal are dismissed, respectively. The costs of appeal corresponding

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the Defendants’ ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the technical information of this case is about the kind of 10 chemical drugs, products, and colors, which are the raw materials of excessive manufacturing, and the creation ratio and creation method of medicine. It is one of the most important management factors in the pen manufacturing enterprise such as the plaintiff company, which is less than 2 years which the plaintiff company short, 32 years which inputs human and physical facilities, and it is more than 90% of the products produced by the plaintiff company, which are used in more than 90% of the products produced by the plaintiff company, and has an independent economic value as a technological information which actually serves as a key element of the plaintiff company's business, and its contents are not generally known, and it is hard to understand unless it is studied or managed by the employees of the plaintiff company's research institute, and it is not possible for all employees of the plaintiff company to have access to the research institute within the factory, while it imposes a duty to maintain confidentiality on all employees of the research institute, and it is not possible for the plaintiff company to obtain the technical information of this case by strictly analyzing design information.

In light of the provisions of Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Records and Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no violation of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to trade secrets. The ground of appeal that the court below acknowledged the scope of trade secrets excessively wide shall not be accepted. The arguments are without merit.

2. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 and the defendants' grounds of appeal No. 1-B and 2-A (the grounds of appeal on the supplemental appellate brief submitted by the plaintiff Kim Jong-won after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds of appeal are examined to the extent that it supplements the above plaintiff's grounds of appeal. The following grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined).

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은, 부정경쟁방지법 제2조 제3호 (가)목 전단 에서 말하는 '부정한 수단'이라 함은 절취·기망·협박 등 형법상의 범죄를 구성하는 행위뿐만 아니라 비밀유지의무의 위반 또는 그 위반의 유인(유인) 등 건전한 거래질서의 유지 내지 공정한 경쟁의 이념에 비추어 위에 열거된 행위에 준하는 선량한 풍속 기타 사회질서에 반하는 일체의 행위나 수단을 말하고, 같은 제3호 (라)목 에서 말하는 '계약관계 등에 의하여 영업비밀을 비밀로서 유지할 의무'라 함은 계약관계 존속 중은 물론 종료 후라도 또한 반드시 명시적으로 계약에 의하여 비밀유지의무를 부담하기로 약정한 경우뿐만 아니라 인적 신뢰관계의 특성 등에 비추어 신의칙상 또는 묵시적으로 그러한 의무를 부담하기로 약정하였다고 보아야 할 경우를 포함한다 고 설시하면서, 피고 이동섭이 원고 회사에 입사할 때 원고 회사의 업무상 기밀 등을 누설하지 않기로 서약하였던 점, 퇴직 후 회사의 기밀 및 영업방침의 누설을 금지하고 있는 원고 회사의 취업규칙의 규정, 이 사건 기술정보의 영업비밀로서의 성질과 그 경제적 가치 및 원고 회사와 피고 이동섭 사이의 이익교량 등의 제반 사정을 고려해 볼 때, 피고 이동섭은 계약관계 및 신의성실의 원칙상 원고 회사에서 퇴사한 후에도 상당 기간 이 사건 기술정보에 대하여 비밀유지의무를 부담한다고 할 것인데도 불구하고, 피고 이동섭은 피고 회사로부터 고액의 급여와 상위의 직위를 받는 등의 이익을 취하는 한편 피고 회사로 하여금 잉크를 제조함에 있어서 이 사건 기술정보를 이용하여 시간적·경제적인 면에서 이익을 얻게 하기 위하여 피고 회사에서 이 사건 기술정보를 공개하고 스스로도 피고 회사에서 원고 회사가 보유하는 이 사건 기술정보를 사용하여 잉크를 생산하거나 생산하려고 하였으므로, 피고 이동섭의 이러한 행위는 공정한 경쟁의 이념에 비추어 선량한 풍속 기타 사회질서에 반하는 부정한 이익을 얻을 목적에서 행하여진 것으로서 부정경쟁방지법 제2조 제3호 (라)목 소정의 영업비밀 침해행위에 해당하고 (다만, 피고 이동섭이 이 사건 노트에 이 사건 기술정보를 기재하여 작성한 행위 자체는, 그 목적이 위 피고 자신이 정규대학이 아닌 전문대학을 졸업한 관계로 장차 관리자가 되었을 때에 정규대학을 졸업한 부하직원들을 지도하고 후일 새로운 잉크를 개발하는 데 참고하기 위하여 자신의 소유인 이 사건 노트에 기재하여 둔 것에 불과하므로, 비록 원고 회사의 방침상 이 사건 기술정보를 개인의 노트에 옮겨 적는 것이 금지되어 있다 하더라도 원고 회사가 이를 이유로 피고 이동섭을 내부적으로 문책할 수 있을지언정 피고 이동섭의 이러한 행위를 두고 부정경쟁방지법 제2조 제3호 (가)목 전단 소정의 '부정취득행위'라고 할 수는 없다.), 또한 피고 회사는 자신의 직원인 소외 조창현, 박순환을 통하여 원고 회사에서 14년 넘게 근무하여 오면서 당시 원고 회사 연구소의 제1연구실장으로 있어 유성잉크 제조에 관하여 많은 지식과 경험을 가지고 있을 뿐만 아니라 원고 회사의 유성잉크의 제조방법에 관한 중요한 기밀사항을 너무나 잘 알고 있고, 수성 잉크, 사무용 풀 등의 제조방법에 관하여서까지 이를 습득할 수 있는 피고 이동섭을 원고 회사에서 보다 높은 직위와 급여를 주기로 하는 등 스카우트 조건에 관하여 협의한 후 피고 회사가 위 직원으로 채용한 점, 피고 이동섭이 1993. 1. 8. 신병치료와 사출공장을 하는 동생을 돕겠다는 이유로 원고 회사를 퇴사하였으나 실제로는 같은 달 1.자로 피고 회사에 입사하고서도 원고 회사에 대하여서는 위 전직사실을 숨긴 점, 피고 회사가 별다른 연구, 개발실적이 없이 피고 이동섭을 스카웃한 후 단기간이 지난 1994. 11. 2. 내지 같은 달 5.까지 사이에 한국종합전시장에 원고 회사의 제품인 염료타입 메모리펜과 그 성분이 동일 또는 본질적으로 유사하다고 보여지는 형광펜 6색을 생산하여 '이미지'라는 상표를 붙여 전시한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 피고 회사는 단지 피고 이동섭이 원고 회사에서 다년간 근무하면서 지득한 일반적인 지식, 기술, 경험 등을 활용하기 위하여 그를 고용한 것이 아니라 피고 이동섭이 비밀유지의무를 부담하면서 원고 회사로부터 습득한 특별한 지식, 기술, 경험 등을 사용하기 위하여 그를 고용하여 이러한 비밀을 누설하도록 유인하는 등 부정한 수단으로 원고 회사가 보유하는 이 사건 기술정보를 취득하였다고 봄이 상당하고, 이는 부정경쟁방지법 제2조 제3호 (가)목 전단 소정의 '영업비밀 침해행위'의 유형에 해당한다 하겠으므로, 결국 피고들의 행위는 부정경쟁방지법 제2조 제3호 (가)목 또는 (라)목 소정의 영업비밀 침해행위에 해당한다고 인정·판단한 다음, 다만 부정경쟁방지법 부칙 제2조 후단에 의하여 피고 이동섭은 위 법 시행 이전에 취득한 이 사건 영업비밀을 위 법 시행 후에 독자적으로 사용하는 것은 허용되나, 나아가 피고 이동섭이 이 사건 영업비밀을 공개하는 행위는 허용되지 아니하고, 피고 회사가 이 사건 영업비밀을 사용하는 행위나 이를 공개하는 행위는 허용되지 아니한다고 하였다.

According to records and relevant laws, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are all justified, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to trade secrets, or any mistake of facts or lack of reasoning in violation of the rules of evidence.

The plaintiff's ground of appeal that the defendant mobile interference did not obtain any trade secret from May 1, 1985 to November 1992 prior to the enforcement of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, on the premise that the act of entering the above set forth in the set for the purpose of follow-up instruction and excessive development reference material, or the act of divulging the above set-up trade secret out of the plaintiff company constitutes an act of improper acquisition of trade secret under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, but the defendant company did not use or disclose the trade secret for the purpose of obtaining any unfair profit or causing damage to the plaintiff, or the defendant mobile interference did not use or disclose the trade secret for the purpose of causing damage to the plaintiff. The defendant mobile interference did not directly use the trade secret of this case, but did not use or disclose the trade secret of this case to the defendant company, and even if the defendant's mobile interference used the trade secret of this case independently, it cannot be viewed as a violation of the trade secret of this case, since all of the defendants' independent opinion are not acceptable.

3. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if the technical information of this case is protected as trade secrets, the court below does not prohibit other bona fide competitors from acquiring manufacturing methods, such as excessive contents, by its own research and development or reverse design, and if such use or disclosure is unlimited, it would unfairly infringe upon the freedom of living and occupation and the freedom of business activities of the defendant company, which were employees of the plaintiff company in today's high-level industry and information society, and it would not be consistent with the balance by granting excessive legal protection to the plaintiff company in comparison with the protection of patent rights, etc. whose duration is fixed as a kind of intellectual property rights, and the technology in modern industrial society is rapidly developing differently from the past, so it would be difficult for the plaintiff company to claim that the aforementioned technical information of this case would not be widely known by the reverse process and thus, it would be difficult to recognize that the plaintiff's act of infringement of trade secrets should not be used for a fair period of time when it is no longer possible for the plaintiff company to freely use the business information of this case.

4. As to the Defendants’ ground of appeal Nos. 2-B and 3 (including the Defendants’ ground of appeal Nos. 2-2 and 3-2)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the Noart of this case is not only the product that created the defendants' trade secret infringement, but also it is necessary to eliminate it from the number of the defendants because the defendants continue or are likely to continue to do so if the defendants continue to hold it, and therefore, the defendants should destroy the Noart of this case one right.

Therefore, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below, although the defendant mobile interference acquired the trade secret of this case and entered it in the set of the trade secret itself after the enforcement of the above Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the act of disclosing the trade secret after the enforcement of the above Unfair Competition Prevention Act constitutes an infringement. If the defendant mobile interference after the enforcement of the above Unfair Competition Prevention Act is offered to disclose the trade secret of this case to the defendant company by manufacturing excessive by using technical information used in the set, as recognized by the court below, the above set containing the trade secret of this case shall be deemed to constitute "the act of infringing the trade secret of this case" under Article 10 (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Thus, if there is a concern that the act of infringing the trade secret of this case might continue, the act of disclosing the trade secret of this case constitutes the act

Although the copy of the above No.S. is submitted as evidence and the record is presented, it does not change. Even if the defendant's mobile interference was directly studied and developed, the research content of the defendant's mobile interference itself is an employee of the plaintiff company who received wages, and it is conducted by referring to the research result of the plaintiff company's equipment, research facilities, and other research institutes, and its contents are not easily known by the above defendant using general knowledge, skills, experience, etc., so it is not different since it becomes the plaintiff company's trade secret.

However, the destruction of the set above shall be ordered to the owner or the person who has the authority to dispose of the set, after indicating the existence of the set in question and examining the record, to order the Defendants to discard the set without examining and disclosing who is in existence, who is in possession of the set in question, or who is the ownership or the authority to dispose of the set in the set, shall be deemed to be a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the destruction of the object of infringement, a mistake in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or a failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or a failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants ordering the destruction of the Nompt of this case shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The plaintiff's appeal and the remaining appeals by the defendants shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal corresponding to the dismissal of the appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)