1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff Company entered into an exclusive advertising management contract with the council of occupants’ representatives in the area C, or the managing body, and thereafter operates its business by posting or distributing advertising materials to apartment buildings at the request of an advertiser. The Defendant served as the head of the Plaintiff Company from January 1, 2013 to September 3, 2014. The Defendant, while working in the Plaintiff Company, did not pass through the Plaintiff Company, did not collect illegal advertisements distributed or attached inside the apartment without going through the Plaintiff Company, or did so to file a complaint with the relevant agency on illegal advertisements (hereinafter “instant work”).

B. On October 5, 2014, the Plaintiff Company received entertainment from illegal advertisers during the course of performing the instant duties, neglected to perform duties, such as denying the distribution of advertising materials, or withdrawal of accusation, thereby causing property damage to the Plaintiff Company (occupational breach of trust). While withdrawing the Plaintiff Company, the Plaintiff Company deleted all important information on the computer, thereby impairing its utility (damage to property), and leaked information containing business secrets of the Plaintiff Company to the outside (Violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act). However, the Defendant filed a criminal charge for suspicion, such as “The East District Office of Busan District Prosecutors’ Office” did not mean that the Defendant’s non-prosecution disposition was “on January 27, 2015.”

Facts that there is no dispute (applicable to recognition), entry in the evidence No. 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. A. A claim for damages arising from neglect of work (section 1) was made on or around May 201, the Defendant: (a) went to travel abroad for a day after absence without permission; (b) unilaterally declared leave on July 1, 2014; and (c) was absent from work without permission for a week; (d) even though D, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, requested to change the collection of illegal advertisements, the Defendant rejected it without any special reason; and (e) on September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff Company’s legitimate transfer of work.