The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange for the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

The total cost of the lawsuit shall be the cost of the lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for dismissal or addition below.

(The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act), which is dismissed or added on February 2, 199, "C" among the grounds of the judgment of the first instance, shall be deemed "G".

Under the third sentence of the judgment of the first instance, the "E Co., Ltd." in the first sentence shall be deemed to be all "E Co., Ltd. and H Co., Ltd.".

Under the third side of the judgment of the first instance, “A evidence 22” shall be added to the “founded ground for recognition” of the 8 to 9 conduct.

The 4th to 5th of the first instance judgment "infringed or to be infringed" shall be raised as follows:

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the damages under Article 11 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act or damages under the Civil Act or the non-performance of the contract prohibiting the transfer of this case, each of the damages suffered by the Plaintiff, the amount of which is KRW 10,000,000, which is part of the damages suffered by the Plaintiff, and the damages for delay thereof, respectively.

After the fifth 10th judgment of the first instance court, the Defendants added the following: “On the other hand, even if the Defendants were able to receive considerable benefits while working for a long time in the Plaintiff Company and obtain expertise in connection with the connection and technology of ultra-hightension cables, etc., it is difficult to deem that sufficient consideration for the prohibition of transfer has been provided to the Defendants.”

Along with the first and second instances of the first instance judgment, the first instance judgment added “I cannot see the first high voltage cable connection and construction technology asserted by the Plaintiff as trade secret, and it cannot be deemed that only the Plaintiff has knowledge or information worth protecting, as seen below.”

Part VI through 7 of the first instance judgment is as follows.