1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded by this court, is modified as follows.

1. The reasoning of this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main text of

2. Determination as to the defendants' main defense

A. The gist of the defense is that the plaintiff is a market dominant business entity in the field of manufacturing technology of the machinery machinery for automobiles, and the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case with a view to obstructing the entry of the machinery machinery for automobiles of the defendant company into the market. Thus, the filing of the lawsuit in this case constitutes abuse of the right.

B. The exercise of the right to trial is also regulated by the principle of good faith in order to protect the other party and secure judicial functions, and the exercise of the right to trial against the good faith principle is not allowed.

(1) The court’s right to a trial is deemed to be an abuse of right against the principle of good faith in determining whether a lawsuit is instituted to realize the right under substantive law as long as the right to a trial falls under the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the court’s right to a trial ought to be prudent in determining whether a lawsuit is an abuse of right against the principle of good faith in determining whether a lawsuit is instituted to realize the right under substantive law.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Meu405 Decided June 24, 2004). Defendant B and C set away the Plaintiff Company without permission, and the Plaintiff’s technical data, such as Lecipe, etc. on the Plaintiff’s automobile string product, were taken out without permission. As seen below, the above materials taken out by the Defendants are the Plaintiff’s major business assets that were not disclosed to the large number of unspecified persons, and so long as the Defendants’ act of illegally acquiring the above materials without permission and then producing and selling the same products constitutes tort, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants for compensation for damages therefrom is a legitimate act under the law.

On the other hand, the motive and purpose of the lawsuit of this case are market dominant.