1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has attempted to implement the Daegu Suwon-gu D (hereinafter “D”) redevelopment project since around 2016 as a company established for the purpose of implementing and executing real estate on behalf of others.

On October 8, 2018, the Defendant was established for the purpose of real estate sale and lease business, etc., and the Defendant (Appointed Party) is its internal director.

The designated parties shall be the Plaintiff’s employee around October 2018.

The retirement was withdrawn.

B. On August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a service agreement with the E-Limited Company (E), the representative director of which is the E (hereinafter “E”) with the content that “services on the land contract and the consent to the use of land for the FF Multi-Family Housing Development Project promoted by E” and is paid KRW 3,604,162,50 in return.

E, around November 9, 2018, expressed to the Plaintiff the intent to terminate the service contract on the ground of the failure to perform the service duty.

C. On January 25, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a service agreement with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) with the content that “purchase business of the site for the new apartment construction project being promoted on a FF scale” and is to receive five billion won (value-added tax separate) in return, and received KRW 850 million from G.

G around March 14, 2019, around March 14, 2019, the Plaintiff expressed the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the service contract on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s employees and the Defendant Company interfered with the purchase of land and that the completion of the Plaintiff’s service cannot be expected.

On April 2019, H, the actual operator of the Plaintiff, filed a complaint against the Defendant (Appointed Party) on charges of credit damage, interference with business, and the designated parties on charges of occupational breach of trust, violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (such as divulgence of business secrets), damage to credit, interference with business, and violation of the Personal Information Protection Act.

On June 25, 2019, the Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office rendered a disposition that the whole of the above complaint was not suspected on the ground of lack of evidence.

Daegu District Prosecutors' Office.