Korea Electric Technology Co., Ltd. (Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Lee Jae-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Dong-dong Development Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Lee Jae-se et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

October 27, 2016

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000,000 won with 15% interest per annum from April 12, 2016 to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same as the order [the plaintiff claimed damages under Article 11 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Unfair Competition Prevention Act") and damages arising from breach of contract].

1. Basic facts

(a) Relations between parties;

○ On October 1, 1975, the Plaintiff was a government-led company established to support the design technology of electric power plants. On October 1, 1975, the Plaintiff performed a large number of chemical power plant design services, such as 1, 2, 9, 10, 10, 10, 1, 2, 3-6, and 1-6, 500, 3-6, and 500 W.

○ The Defendant is operating a power plant, such as Samcheon Power Plant, Samcheon Power Plant, Young Power Plant, etc., established separately from the Korea Electric Power Corporation in 2001.

○ Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Co., Ltd.”) is a company that performs engineering services in the fields of chemical plant, power generation, energy, and industrial plant, etc., and performed design services in the Republic of Korea at the level of 560 M 1 to 4, 500 W, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport at the level of 560W, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport at the level of 7 and 8, the Ministry

B. Conclusion, etc. of a design service contract for the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s interest 3 and 4 chemical power plant

○ On February 28, 2003, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a design technology service contract (hereinafter “three-four-party contract”) with a content that the Plaintiff carries out the work of KRW 41,500,000 (including value-added tax) at the contract amount of KRW 41,50,000 (including the value-added tax) (hereinafter “three-party contract”) for the basic design, details of the basic design, and technical assistance of the business owner, 200 MW 3 and 4 (the schedule of completion of each construction of June and March 2008) constructed by the Defendant. The three-party contract includes the following provisions:

Section 1 of Chapter 1 of the Table contained in the main text (hereinafter referred to as “the General Conditions for the Use of Technical Knowledge and Confidentiality”) (1) An ordering person (the defendant; hereinafter the same shall apply) may reproduce, use, or disclose all or part of various reports, information, and other data submitted by the other party to the contract (the plaintiff; hereinafter the same shall apply) pursuant to the provisions of the contract and the technical knowledge acquired therefrom for the interest of the ordering person after obtaining approval from the other party to the contract. (2) The other party to the contract shall not divulge any information acquired through the contract or confidential information of the ordering person through the contract to the outside and after the execution of the contract. The other party to the contract shall not disclose any information acquired through the contract and confidential information of the ordering person. (k) The other party to the contract (hereinafter referred to as “the provisions for the use of technical knowledge and confidential information”) shall be used inevitably for the operation and maintenance of the power plant and shall be used as important reference materials at the time of the construction of the power plant in the future.

The Plaintiff prepared and submitted design service data, including the data on the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “instant design data”) to the Defendant under the contract of 3 and 4.

(c) Process, etc. for bidding for construction services for interest 5, 6 houses;

○ With respect to the construction of the construction of the field 5 and 6, which was scheduled from the time of the contract of the 3 and 4, the Defendant issued, around June 2009, a plan for the performance of the design technology services of the field 5 and 6 (hereinafter “performance plan”) that contain the following contents to the Plaintiff, and had the intention to conclude the service contract. The Plaintiff presented to the Defendant the amount of KRW 80 billion to KRW 90 billion at the design service cost.

(1) The contractor shall comply with the order of the project owner in providing the service, and shall provide the service in accordance with the data, information, guidelines, etc. Section 2; Section 2, the basic design and detailed design shall be carried out in order to construct reliable electric power plants, the technological feasibility and economic feasibility of which are excellent and reliable, based on the basic plan and traffic, environmental impact assessment report and other data provided by the project owner; and the following all materials shall be submitted directly for the optimalization of electric power plants: (a) To review the following matters for the improvement of prior equipment and facilities, and for the examination of the improvement of special equipment and measures, Section 3, Section 6, the examination of existing equipment and facilities; (a) to reflect the optimal economic feasibility and reliability of the electric power plants in comparison with the existing equipment and facilities; and (b) to reflect in comparison with the existing equipment and facilities for public interest; and

○ The Defendant set the basic amount of the tender announcement as KRW 46,362,00,00 on the 5,6, and the 6,000,000 in the tender announcement, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the tender after the profitability review.

D. Conclusion of a design service contract with the Defendant for the interest of Hyundai Engineering 5 and 6

○ The Defendant: (a) conducted a general competitive bid for the selection of the design service companies of the 5, 6th period of Yeongdeungpo-gu and Young-gu; (b) on August 2009, concluded a design service contract (hereinafter “the 5, 6 period contract”) with the modern engineering sector, including the basic design, detailed design, and technical support of the 5, 6th period, with the content that modern engineering works for the contract amounting to KRW 46,841,30,00 (including value-added tax). The 5, 6 period contract includes the following provisions.

(a) The other party to a contract (the same shall apply hereinafter) shall comply with the work order of the ordering person (the defendant; hereinafter the same shall apply) while providing services in Section 1 of Chapter II included in the text, and shall provide services in accordance with the standards for data, information, guidelines, etc. Section 2. Chapter II: service details and work sections 2; and Chapter II: the basic plan and detailed design shall be carried out in order to construct a reliable power plant, the technical feasibility and economic feasibility of which are outstanding, and reliable, based on the basic plan and detailed design provided by the ordering person; and all other data on the following matters shall be prepared and submitted (a) to ensure the optimal implementation of the power plant; (b) review of basic design; (c) review of the matters related to the improvement of facilities prior to the common sector; and (d) review of the technical feasibility and technical feasibility of the new design and technical requirements of Chapter II; and (v) review of the technical feasibility and technical requirements of the new design and technical requirements of the new design and technical requirements of Section 3; and (v) review of the design or technical requirements of the new design and technical requirements of the new model.

From August 2009 to September 2010, Nonparty 1, etc., an employee of the modern engineering, prepared a technical specifications for the Young 5 and 6 period in the manner of partly amending the technical specifications attached to the tender proposal of Young 3 and 4 period, and submitted them with the tender proposal. In addition, after reviewing the design documents of this case, Nonparty 1, etc., as an employee of the modern engineering, prepared the design documents of Young 5 and 6 period in the way of partly modifying and changing the contents of the technical specifications attached to the tender proposal of Young 3 and 4 period.

On the other hand, the term “YY 5 and 6” is different from the term “YY 1 and 4 electric power plants” in the sense that, unlike the term “YY 3, 4, and 1-4 electric power plants,” the term was designed in the form of utilizing buildings, equipment, etc. to be newly constructed in the new site, and the term “YY 7 and 8 electric power plants” in the sense that the term “YY 5 and 6 electric power plants” were installed in comparison with the term “YY 1 to 4 electric power plants”

(e) Criminal complaints and accusation cases;

○ The Plaintiff filed a complaint on December 5, 2012 against Defendant, Hyundai Engineering, and its employees on charges of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Disclosure of Confidential Information, etc.) and filed a complaint on April 30, 2013. On January 6, 2014, the Prosecutor rendered a non-prosecution disposition (no charge) on the ground that the instant design data is not recognized as confidential.

○ Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed and re-examineed against the re-investigation order, but on January 20, 2015, the Prosecutor rendered a non-prosecution disposition (not guilty) on the ground that “The trade secrets of the design data of this case are recognized, but not subjective elements, such as criminal intent, are not recognized.”

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 20, 23, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the defendant's act of infringing trade secrets is recognized

A. Trade secrets of the design data of this case

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 2 subparag. 2 subparag. 5 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that “no patent information is publicly known” as a requirement to constitute “trade secret” means that information cannot be ordinarily obtained without going through a holder because it is not known to many and unspecified persons, such as a publication, etc. (non-public nature), and “the holder of information has an independent economic value,” means that the holder of information may obtain competition benefits from the competitor through the use of the information, or that considerable expenses or effort is needed for the acquisition or development of the information (economic usefulness), and “the information shall be kept confidential by considerable effort” means a state in which it is recognizable that the information is confidential or notified, and that the information is objectively maintained and managed by the person or access to the information, such as restricting access to the information or imposing a duty to maintain confidentiality, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 202Da12589, Jul. 14, 2011).

2) Non-public land

A) According to the following circumstances which are acknowledged by the overall purport of pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 7, the design data of this case is deemed to have an unofficial nature as a trade secret.

2) The design data of this case is divided into: (i) a basic review document prepared in the course of carrying out the basic design for power plants facilities by specialized fields, such as machinery, environment, construction, civil engineering, electricity, and measurement and control; (ii) a basic design report containing the provision of design input data, which is the basis of detailed design, by selecting and verifying detailed design items; (iii) a mechanical equipment and environmental facility constituting a power plant; and a principal equipment linkage system for the operation and stable operation of each equipment; (iv) a design document setting the design requirements for each power plant system and equipment based on the design standards; (v) a system description setting the capacity and quantity for each device through the process of planning the design specifications; (v) a design document setting the design standards and specifications for facilities and systems by the Plaintiff’s choice; and (6) a design specification setting the design specifications for a power plant in accordance with various formula; and (vi) a design specification that the Plaintiff did not have disclosed technical specifications, specifications, and specifications for the purpose of measuring the equipment in the public sector; and (vi) a design specification that the Plaintiff did not have disclosed.

Even if some of the design data of this case were disclosed to some collaborative entities with respect to the construction, maintenance, repair, etc. of power plants, it seems that it would not normally be available without going through the plaintiff who is an information holder.

The contract of 00 3 and 4 provides that "a clause concerning the use of technical knowledge, etc." as mentioned above is stipulated in the above provision, and as seen below, the defendant bears the duty to maintain confidentiality of the design data of this case in accordance with the above provision of contract and the good faith principle.

B) As to this, the Defendant asserts that core technology of the design data of this case has already been published in design standardization data, various specifications, design standards, existing power plant design data, etc., and that it cannot be trade secrets since driving guidelines, repair guidelines, list of materials, and data north prepared by a device manufacturer. However, there is no evidence suggesting that the design data of this case, design standardization data of this case, and other publicly announced materials such as various specifications, etc. are less than dynamics, or that the Plaintiff prepared a driving manual, etc. by simply mixing them with those prepared by a device manufacturer, and there is no evidence proving that the design data of this case is publicly known (non-official evidence denying non-officialness) and even if some of the individual information recorded in part of the design data of this case was disclosed to the related person, it is difficult to view that there was no reason for the above Defendant’s assertion as above.

(iii) economic usefulness;

According to the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the design data of this case has an independent economic value as useful technical information, according to each of the basic facts and evidence Nos. 1 and 7, recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings.

Since the 1980s, the Plaintiff performed a large-scale large-scale thermal power plant design service in Korea, which has business advantages or advantages prior to business advantages than other competitors with no experience in the field of thermal power plant design service in at least 800 MW, and accumulated considerable time and experience in the contents of the design data of this case.

○ In the event that a competitor without experience in designing a thermal power plant at least 800 MW design service (the current engineering has no experience in performing the design service of a thermal power plant at 800 MW prior to Yeongdeungpo 5 and 6) obtains the design data of the instant case, the economic value is sufficiently recognized in that it can be utilized in the same or similar thermal power plant design in the future and can minimize the execution error process, etc. that may be additionally created due to the difference in design depending on the difference in the capacity of the power plant.

In addition, the design data of this case can be seen as having considerable economic value through the unique characteristics in the field of construction of a thermal power plant, the amount of the design service cost of this case, and the design data of this case were used almost as they are in the field of construction of a thermal power plant.

4) Confidentiality

A) According to the following circumstances, it is recognized that the Plaintiff maintains and manages the design data of this case as confidential according to the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 8, and 13, which are acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings:

The Plaintiff has set up the regulations on the security service procedures that provide for the internal security rules of the company and the detailed procedures and standards for its implementation, and has been working towards the employees to provide information security education to prevent divulgence of trade secrets and to receive a written pledge of security, etc. In addition, the technology development documents, including the design data of this case, including the five levels, have been classified into five levels, and have been managed separately for each approaching person

○○ The design data of this case contains the Plaintiff’s name written by the Plaintiff’s company. Part of the design data of this case states “THINFRMAMASON PREEN PESOEDOTR PAGGE PAPPPPPR ACT PAGE ACT,” “GGE PEPPPRAL ACTD RED RED RED REDD REDD REDD RED REGD RED REGD REGD RE REPED RED REPCR REPED REN REN REPPPPE REN REPEN PPPE 204” or “KOPE 204”.

As seen in Section 1 of the same Article, the Defendant bears the duty to maintain confidentiality of the design data of this case in accordance with the three, four, and the good faith principle.

B) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the design data of this case, even though he knew that the design data of this case would be used for the construction of the field Nos. 5 and 6 through a performance plan and a tender notice notice, etc., and that he did not make considerable efforts to keep the design data of this case confidential by neglecting it for several years thereafter. According to the overall purport of the entries and arguments on the foundation facts and evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant delivered a performance plan and a tender guide form to the Plaintiff during the consultation process on the conclusion of the contract of the 5 and 6th period, and received any objection to them. Furthermore, even if it is recognized that the Plaintiff was aware in advance of the Plaintiff’s disclosure of the design data of this case to the design service provider under competition with the Plaintiff, or that it was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant consented to such disclosure. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The owner of the instant trade secret

A person who possesses trade secrets refers to a person who has a legitimate authority to produce and develop the relevant information directly by himself/herself or to obtain it through a legally effective transaction, such as a trade permit agreement or a license agreement. The plaintiff is a person who initially created the design data of this case, which is a trade secret, and is a person who holds the trade secret.

As to this, the Defendant paid the service cost and received the design data of this case from the Plaintiff, the ownership and the right to use the design data of this case belongs to the Defendant, and some data, such as the device-related drawings, were prepared and revised according to the Defendant’s instructions, and thus, the design data of this case is not the Plaintiff’s trade secret but the

However, even if the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to prepare and modify part of the design data of this case in the course of design service, or the Defendant acquired ownership and right to use the design data of this case in accordance with the contract of 3 and 4, it is reasonable to view that the status as the holder of the trade secret of this case as the holder of the trade secret of this case is still reserved to the Plaintiff, unless the status as the holder of the trade secret of this case is expressly stipulated in the contract of 3 and 4, unless the status as the holder of the trade secret of this case as the holder

C. Whether the defendant's act constitutes an infringement under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (d) (7) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

1) Whether the defendant's "the duty of confidentiality by contract relations, etc." is recognized

It is reasonable to view that the Defendant is liable to maintain the confidentiality of the design data of this case pursuant to the provisions such as the use of technical knowledge, etc. among the three and four contracts (Article 8(2), such as the use of technical knowledge, imposes on the Plaintiff the duty of confidentiality on the “information or confidential information of the ordering person” (Article 8(2), and the provision such as the use of technical knowledge, etc. does not change the meaning of Paragraph (1) on the ground that the provisions such as the use of technical knowledge, etc., were transferred as they were stipulated in

In addition, "the duty to maintain trade secrets as confidential due to contractual relations, etc." includes not only the existence of a contractual relationship but also the case where a contract is explicitly agreed to perform the duty to maintain confidentiality, but also the case where the contract is concluded to assume such duty differently or implicitly in light of the characteristics of personal trust, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da16605 delivered on December 23, 1996, etc.), 3 and 4 terms of the contract, and the economic value of the design data of this case, etc., it is reasonable to view that the defendant bears the duty to maintain confidentiality under the principle of good faith as the counter party to the contract 3 and 4 terms.

In regard to this, the Defendant had already planned construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the 3 and 4, and the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the Republic of Korea, the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the 5 and 6, the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the construction of the Republic of Korea

However, in light of the circumstances seen below, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s permission was granted, as alleged above, in light of the provision on the use of reference materials prior to the contract of 3 and 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the following circumstances are recognized according to the facts based on which the Plaintiff was based, and the overall purport of the statement and pleading as to No. 2.

At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, there was no express agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on “YYNT method” on the fact that the instant design data will be used in the construction of the COY 5 and 6th unit for the interesting 3 and 4 unit. In addition, there was no calculation of the price for the design service on the premise of the said agreement (in light of the business value of the instant design data, the content of the design service, and the cost for the design service, it appears that the Defendant would have clearly stipulated the contract in order to use the instant design data in the manner of disclosing it to other companies).

The phrase "it may be used as an important reference material" in the provision using reference material means that the defendant himself/herself, the ordering owner, permits the use of the design material of this case as reference material for the construction of a follow-up power plant, and further does not mean that the defendant has the authority to use the design material of this case to disclose the design material of this case to the same company in competition with the plaintiff and to use it as reference material.

2) Whether the Defendant’s “the purpose of causing damage to an illegal profit or a trade secret owner” is recognized

The meaning of "illegal profits" under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (d) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act refers to the profits that a person holding a trade secret should not use or disclose the trade secret in question without permission, or the profits that a person holding a trade secret has violated his/her duty under the principle of good faith, and such profits include not only the profits of a person holding a trade secret but also the profits of a third party.

On the other hand, the defendant provided the design data of this case to Hyundai Engineering, a competitor, without any consultation with the plaintiff, despite the existence of a duty to maintain confidentiality. The facts that modern engineering used it for the design of Heung 5 and 6 are as seen earlier, and therefore, it is recognized that there was an objective of unjust profit for the defendant (in fact, the defendant issued a notice of tender of service amounting to KRW 46,362,00,000 which is much less than that of the plaintiff under the receipt of the service cost of KRW 80,000 or KRW 90,000 which is much less than that of the plaintiff, with the modern engineering, with the tender of KRW 46,841,30,000 which is more than twice, and entered into a contract of 5,60,000 with the modern engineering, and it seems that the present engineering had been able to save time for designing the design data of this case as it was about 5,666,00,000 won.)

In this regard, the Defendant merely stated that it was "Reference" in providing the design data of this case to modern engineering and did not infringe trade secrets because it was not "beer". However, it does not affect the conclusion of whether a person under confidentiality disclosed trade secrets for the purpose of unjust profit, thereby infringing trade secrets, and whether the scope of use was limited in disclosing trade secrets, and whether the scope of use was limited in disclosing them. Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that the period of Nos. 5, 6 was designed by the Kap plant of No. 3 and No. 4, and the modern engineering, as a design service provider, performed the specific design service after consultation with the Defendant. The Defendant seems to have sufficiently predicted the possibility that the design data of this case would be used as it is for the design of No. 5 and No. 6. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant’s disclosure of the design data of this case to modern engineering constitutes a trade secret infringement under Article 2 subparag. 3(d) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Relevant legal principles;

Article 14-2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that the victim's liability for assertion and proof concerning damage shall be mitigated, and even in cases where it is evident that there is no occurrence of damage, it shall not be the purport of recognizing the infringer's liability for compensation. However, in light of the purport of the provision, it is sufficient to assert and prove the possibility of occurrence of damage or the existence of probability in the degree of assertion and proof concerning the occurrence of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da22722, Nov. 13, 2008; 96Da43119, Sept. 12, 1997).

B. Determination

The defendant violated the duty of confidentiality and thereby infringed the plaintiff's trade secret by disclosing the plaintiff's trade secret to Hyundai Engineering, which is the competitor, and thereby leaked the design technology of the coal power plant at 870M, which the plaintiff possessed, to Hyundai Engineering, which is the competitor. It is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff suffered property damage equivalent to the cost of business profit reduction due to the loss of trade secrets of the design data of this case and the cost of independent development of design data of this case. Furthermore, according to the above facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the plaintiff suffered property damage due to the plaintiff's intentional act or negligence. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to compensate for the above damage caused by the defendant's infringement of trade secrets pursuant to Article 11 Section 11 of the Unfair

In regard to this, the defendant, pursuant to Article 1 (1) of the Technology and Knowledge Use Clause, has to approve the defendant's provision of the design data of this case to the Young-gu Design Service Company 5 and 6, so it cannot be viewed that the defendant's provision of the design data of this case cannot be seen as causing any damage to the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant did not obtain explicit approval from the plaintiff prior to its provision. However, the provision that "it may be used or disclosed with the approval from the contracting party" under paragraph (1) of the above Article cannot be deemed as imposing the obligation to use or disclose the design data of this case on the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove that the plaintiff has the obligation to approve or allow the disclosure

4. Scope of liability for damages

A. Claim on the presumption of damages under Article 14-2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant’s offering of design data of this case to Hyundai Engineering constitutes “transfer of goods infringing on trade secrets”. Accordingly, the Plaintiff failed to obtain profit corresponding to the Plaintiff’s operating profit rate out of the service costs for the 5,6th period, and the Plaintiff’s offering of service costs for the 5,841,30,000 won for the 5,6th period (46,841,300 won) multiplied by the Plaintiff’s operating profit rate of 17.3% (i.e., KRW 46,841,30,000 x 17.3%). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s offering of design data for the 8,103,54,900 won is calculated as the amount obtained by multiplying the Plaintiff’s operating profit rate of the 17.3% for the 5,6th period (=6,841,30,000 x 17.3%). Accordingly, the Plaintiff

2) Determination

Article 14-2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "goods which cause infringement of trade secrets" shall be deemed as "goods produced and sold using the trade secret in light of the fact that the said provision can be deemed as damages calculated using "the profit per unit", "the quantity of goods produced or sold", "the quantity of goods sold", and "the quantity of goods sold".

The design data of this case is related to a specific thermal power plant, so it cannot be said to be a product produced and sold in large quantities (In addition, the thermal power plant constructed using the design data of this case shall not be deemed to be a product distributed in commercial transactions).

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the design data of this case is “an article which causes infringement of trade secrets.”

B. Recognition of damages under Article 14-2(5) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

The plaintiff suffered losses from the plaintiff's infringement of the defendant's trade secrets, such as the reduction of business profits that will be caused by the plaintiff's participation in the bidding of low service costs in the competition for the main owner of a power plant design service in the future, or property losses equivalent to the cost required for the independent development of the design data of this case. Since it is extremely difficult to prove facts necessary for the plaintiff's proof of the amount of damages, this court shall recognize a reasonable amount of damages based on the whole purport of pleading and the result of examination of evidence in accordance with Article 14-2 (5) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Therefore, according to the following circumstances, the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s infringement of trade secrets, at least 1,00,000,000 won claimed by the Plaintiff, can be sufficiently recognized.

○ The Plaintiff entered into a design service agreement with a contract amount of KRW 1,14.4 billion in relation to the new Decree 1,200 M 1,17 January 17, 201, with respect to the new Decree 1,200 M 1,000 M 9,100 M 9,100 M 10,03.0 billion in contract amount, and KRW 1,03 billion in relation to September 30, 2009 1,02M 3,02W 1,22 M 3,20.9.

Even if considering the contents, scope, etc. of the design service contract, it seems that the preparation of the design data of this case out of the design service cost is not significant.

○ The Plaintiff has business advantages or advantages prior to other competitors in the field of chemical power plant design services in the Republic of Korea higher than 800 MW, and this technology and experience seems to have been accumulated by considerable time and effort, and it seems that considerable time and time are needed for competitors without such experience to acquire them.

○ Hyundai Engineering is deemed to have obtained a profit of at least KRW 00 million through the conclusion of the 5, 6th contract (contract price of KRW 46,841,300,000). The technical data obtained based on the design data of this case seems to be useful in executing the design service contract of the 5, 6th contract.

○ The Plaintiff appears to sustain a shooting in operating capacity, etc. due to the entry of new competitors into the design service field of large-scale chemical power plant with almost a dominant position in Korea, and it seems inevitable to charge the unit cost of design service.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000,000 won for damages and 15% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 12, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is obviously the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's selective claims, which is stipulated in Article 11 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, shall be accepted for the reason of the reason (this does not determine the remaining selective claims), and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)

(1) On November 2004, the Plaintiff completed the design service at KRW 71.2 billion.

Note 2) Establishment of standards for facility design, calculation of major basic plans, preparation of basic drawings, execution of basic plans for soil construction costs, etc. corresponding thereto.

Note 3) Detailed design based on the basic design, including design, confirmation of design standards and system specifications, completion of installation of power plants and installation of equipment, and detailed design duties, etc. for all fields, such as machinery, electricity, measurement and control, corresponding thereto.

Note 4) General term of work assisting in the construction of power plants in the course of the purchase, construction, and operation of facilities of power plants other than design work. General service reports, driving guides, specifications of design, completion drawings, etc. are prepared and provided.

2. The term "trade secret" means any production method, sale method and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which are not known to the public, has independent economic value, and has been maintained in secret by reasonable efforts.

Note 6) In that the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof of non-public nature that if the Plaintiff imposes the burden of proof strictly on the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof that all third parties other than himself/herself are not aware of such information, it is presumed that the Plaintiff is not known to the public within a reasonable scope that the Plaintiff is unable to obtain the relevant information. It is reasonable to view that the Defendant has to prove that the relevant information is publicly known.

3. The term "act of infringing on trade secrets" means any of the following acts:

8) In preparation for each text of paragraphs (1) and (2) such as the use of technical knowledge, etc., “information obtained through a contract” in paragraph (2) means information on the client (the defendant) that the other party to the contract came to know through the contract, and “the instant design data” should be deemed not to be included therein, but to constitute “technical knowledge” in paragraph (1).

9) Replication the design data of the preceding heading and designing the subsequent heading power plant in the same or similar form;

(10) Where a person whose business interests have been infringed on by an act of unfair competition, violation referred to in Article 3-2 (1) or (2), or infringement of trade secrets claims compensation under Article 5 or 11, the amount of damages may be calculated as the amount of damages suffered by the person whose business interests have been infringed by the amount calculated by multiplying the number of those referred to in subparagraph 1 by the profit per unit referred to in subparagraph 2, if the infringer transfers an act of unfair competition, violation referred to in Article 3-2 (1) or (2), or an article which causes infringement of trade secrets. In such cases, the amount of damages shall not exceed the amount calculated by multiplying the number of the articles that the person whose business interests have been infringed on could have produced less the number of articles actually sold, by the number of articles actually sold, notwithstanding the fact that the person was unable to sell because of reasons other than the act of unfair competition, violation referred to in Article 3-2 (1) or (2), or infringement of trade secrets.

11) A person who causes damage to the business interest of a person who possesses trade secrets by an intentional or negligent infringement of trade secrets under Article 11 (Liability for Damages against Infringement of Trade Secrets) shall be liable for such damage.