The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 6, 2017, Plaintiff (mutually: D-Co., Ltd. E-Co.) was established for the purpose of transportation business, service business, etc.

The plaintiff's business employees have recruited land owners by means of distributing leaflets in the cargo transport training center, etc.

B. From February 25, 2019 to September 5, 2019, the Defendant served as the Plaintiff’s business employee.

C. On February 25, 2019, the Defendant signed a one-year employment contract (the annual salary amounting to KRW 25.2 million per month) with the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the “agreement”, “a trade secret and duty security pledge,” and “retirementman’s trade secret and duty security pledge,” as presented by the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the contract.

Article 2(2) of the above Agreement provides that “The Defendant shall not, even if the contract is terminated, leave his/her position to the same industry for five years under mutual agreement. When leaving his/her position to the same industry, he/she shall reimburse the Plaintiff KRW 100 million (hereinafter referred to as the “instant arrangement”).” The “a person shall not use, divulge, or disclose trade secrets and duties of the company he/she acquired at the time of his/her employment against the company’s will after his/her retirement.” (paragraph (1) of the said Agreement provides that he/she shall not use, divulge, or disclose trade secrets and duties by starting a business using trade secrets acquired at the time of his/her employment or employed in another company

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination that the Defendant set aside the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff according to the instant agreement since September 15, 2019, “The Plaintiff is engaged in business activities in the same industry as the Plaintiff’s competitor.”

Therefore, I first examine the validity of the instant agreement.

Freedom of occupation and right to work.