2012 Gohap 23005 Prohibition, etc. against infringement of trade secrets

A Stock Company

1. B

2. C.

3. Stock companies D.

4. E.

5. F;

6. G.

December 22, 2015

January 19, 2016

1. By October 30, 2016, Defendant C shall not produce, use, transfer, lend, export, or subscribe for transfer or lease products listed in paragraph 2 of the attached Table by using trade secrets listed in paragraph 1 of the attached Table, and shall not disclose trade secrets listed in paragraph 1 to a third party.

2. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff 1,498,100,000 won with 5% interest per annum from October 31, 2013 to January 19, 2016 and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, 20% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

5. The above paragraphs 1 and 2 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant B, C, E, F, and D shall not manufacture, use, transfer, lease, export, or subscribe for transfer or lease of products listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table by using trade secrets listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table, and shall not disclose trade secrets listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table to a third party. Defendant G shall not use, transfer, lease, export, or subscribe for transfer or lease of products listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table produced by using trade secrets listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff for KRW 2,412,79,00 and for KRW 90,751,000 from January 1, 2012 to KRW 623,186,000 from the date following the date of payment of the claim to the Plaintiff by 15% per annum from the date following the date of payment of each of the following amounts, with respect to KRW 1,108,298,00 per annum.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) A party;

1) On November 22, 200, the Plaintiff (formerly, H Co., Ltd.) was engaged in synthetic rubber research and manufacturing business under the trade name of this “H, a representative director, and was established for the purpose of the business of manufacturing semiconductor gold (MOLD) and the co-rating agents of rubber type, “J”, and “K,” the rubber-type co-rating agents of semiconductor type, “K,” and its main products are JX300, JS800, WS7600, WS750NS, and WS8100.

2) Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) was established on April 12, 2010 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling Defendant B, F, and E’s rubber-type co-rating and cleaning agents of semiconductors, which were manufactured and sold from August 2010.

3) On September 1, 2003, Defendant B joined the Plaintiff and then retired on December 31, 2010. On April 12, 2010, Defendant B established the Defendant Company together with Defendant E and F, while on December 8, 2010, Defendant B established L, a company selling rubber-type gold refining and co-rating agents produced by the Defendant Company (hereinafter referred to as “L”) and appointed as its representative director.

4) On August 2, 2004, Defendant C joined the Plaintiff and worked as the production team leader and the business team leader after Defendant B retired. On October 31, 201, Defendant C retired and then worked for the Defendant Company to exercise overall control over the production team.

5) Defendant F, as a senior branch of Defendant B and M University, established the Defendant Company with Defendant B and E on April 12, 2010, and is in fact operating the Defendant Company as a director or representative director of the Defendant Company.

6) Defendant E, as part of the university of Defendant B and F, established the Defendant Company with Defendant B and F on April 12, 2010, and served as the inside director or representative director of the Defendant Company, and is in charge of the technical parts and investment parts of the Defendant Company’s products.

7) Defendant G was supplied exclusively with J and K produced by the Plaintiff and established a 0-stock company (hereinafter referred to as “N”) around June 2009, when it was engaged in general business operations in the exporting trade-related company N (hereinafter referred to as “N”). From then on February 12, 2012, Defendant G exclusively supplied the Plaintiff’s products and sold them abroad (i.e., the Plaintiff’s products to be exclusively supplied until February 12, 2012). According to the contract made between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, Defendant G was obligated to maintain the Plaintiff’s trade secrets with the Plaintiff’s products or customers, etc. with the Plaintiff’s right to sell the Plaintiff’s products, having exclusive ownership in a certain area outside of Korea).

B. Development of the Plaintiff’s composite ratio

1) For semiconductors and co-rating purposes, semiconductors are used in melting and co-rating coal and polluted materials remaining inside gold-types used in the manufacture of semiconductors. In the past, products used as a main charge of Mellass. However, around 1986, Japan’s Melco (NNto DenO) made the world’s first rubber in the world as the main charge of semiconductor gold-type and co-rating, and thereafter, products used as the main charge of Mellass and rubber as the main charge.

2) Rubber-type co-rating agents and co-rating agents consisting of rubber, inorganic dusting agents, sprinking agents or co-rating agents, light chemical agents, and other additives. The quality of products varies depending on which kind of raw materials is mixed at a certain ratio. The Plaintiff’s representative director, as an expert in the rubber material sector, such as having experience as a research institute for synthetic rubber technical assistance at PC Co., Ltd., for about three years, began to launch the initial products of rubber-type co-manufacturing agents and co-rating agents through research and development on mixed ratio and field test for about three years from the latter part of 199, and established the Plaintiff on November 22, 200 for manufacturing and selling this product.

3) Even after its establishment, the Plaintiff continued to conduct research and development by investing KRW 00 million each year in order to improve the existing product and develop a new product model according to a new composite ratio. As a result, the Plaintiff developed the trade secret listed in attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant composite ratio”) from 2000 to JX300 products, and WS7600 products from 2003. From December 2004, the Plaintiff newly produced and sold JS800 and WS750N products from 2005 to 4050% of the world market on the rubber-type plastic gold refining and co-rating agents (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s major products”).

C. Since May to June of the same year after the establishment of April 12, 2010, the Defendant Company manufactured and sold a large number of rubber-type semiconductor gold refining and co-rating agents, including the products listed in the [Attachment List 2 (hereinafter “Defendant Company’s major products”) since the commencement of manufacturing and selling rubber-type plastic metal-type and co-rating agents around August to June of the same year, and since the commencement of manufacturing and selling rubber-type plastic metal-type and co-rating products through Q’s business registration (the name of the business owner is the wife of Defendant G), and the major products of the Plaintiff Company began to be sold to the Plaintiff Company on behalf of the Plaintiff Company from August of the same year, and the major products of the Plaintiff Company began to be sold to the Plaintiff Company from February of the same year, and the major products of the Plaintiff Company began to be sold to the Plaintiff Company on behalf of the Plaintiff Company.

(d) the progress of related criminal cases;

1) The Plaintiff listened to the novel that Defendant Company manufactures and sells rubber-type detaileds and co-rating agents identical or similar to the Plaintiff, and restored the removed files from the returned strip North Korea while leaving the Plaintiff at the time of leaving the Plaintiff. As a result, the Plaintiff discovered files such as rubber-type detaileds of semiconductor gold and equipment specifications necessary for the production of the Plaintiff’s factory equipment, etc., the direction of the order for the manufacture of rubber-type metal, the order for the installation of a factory and production facilities, and the drawings of factory radar, etc.

2) The Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against Defendant B, C, F, and E on the charge of violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Unfair Competition Prevention Act"). Defendant B used the Plaintiff at the investigative agency and restored the files deleted from the Nopt North Korea returned while leaving the Plaintiff, and as a result, many files of the product cost calculation table and work instruction file indicating the mixing ratio in addition to the files described in the above paragraph (1) were discovered. Defendant B, C, and F were indicted on November 29, 2012 and pending trial under the Cheongju District Court Decision 2012Hun-Ga2474 at present. Meanwhile, Defendant E was subject to a disposition of lack of evidence as to the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act on November 28, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 116 (including all types of proof; hereinafter the same shall apply), T’s testimony, U’s partial testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for prohibition against infringement of trade secrets

A. Whether trade secrets are specified

In seeking prohibition against infringement of trade secrets, if possible, the trade secrets must be specified to the extent that it does not infringe on the secrecy of the court's trial and the other party's right to defense. Whether to specify trade secrets to a certain extent should be determined by taking into account various circumstances, such as the content and nature of individual information claimed as trade secrets, information publicly known in the related field, specific mode and content of the infringement of trade secrets, details of the claim for prohibition and prohibition, and relationship between the person holding the trade secrets and the other party (see Supreme Court Order 201Ma1624, Aug. 22, 2013).As to this case, the health stand, the Plaintiff stated that the mixing ratio of the Plaintiff in this case means each combination ratio listed in the evidence No. 17-1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, which is the combination ratio of the Plaintiff's products, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that there is no problem in the court's trial and the defendants' right to defense.

B. Whether the combination ratio of this case constitutes trade secrets

(i) requirements;

A trade secret under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act means a trade secret under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 13081, Jan. 28, 2015; hereinafter the Act prior to the amendment is simply referred to as the "Unfair Competition Prevention Act") that is not known and has independent economic value and is maintained as secret by considerable effort (confidentially managed), and is also useful technical or business information for business activities (economic usefulness).

In the instant case, in order to protect trade secrets based on the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the term “non-publically known” means that information is ordinarily unable to be obtained without going through a holder because it is not known to many and unspecified persons, such as publishing or other media. “Keeping confidential information by considerable effort” means a situation where it is recognizable that information is maintained and managed as confidential (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da12528, Jul. 14, 201; 2009Da12528, Jul. 14, 201; 2009Da36069, Apr. 26, 2005). It means that, inasmuch as an owner of information can obtain competition benefits from competitors or manages the information by using such information, it is not possible to use such information to control trade secrets or make efforts to protect trade secrets (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12528, Jul. 14, 201).

2) Considering the following circumstances, the instant mixing ratio is not open to the prior patent, etc., and even if the Plaintiff’s major product is analyzed based on the contents of the prior patent, it appears that the exact mixing ratio cannot be identified. Even if the reverse design is possible and it is possible to obtain technical information thereby, such circumstance does not hinder the deeming of technical information as trade secrets. Thus, the mixing ratio of this case is acknowledged to meet the non-officialness requirement.

① On November 16, 2001, the invention of “mald rubber products” was disclosed under the Patent Gazette No. 2001-010102709, Nov. 16, 2001. The Plaintiff’s JX300 composition ingredients, mixing ratio, and the combination ratio are different as follows: (i) the Plaintiff’s JX300 composition ingredients, mixing ratio, and (ii) the composition components and mixing ratio are as follows; and (iii) the disclosure of the Patent Gazette does not include specific product names (the combination ratio of the Plaintiff JX300 and the MEA composition ratio of the 1.5 MEA composition is similar to those of the Plaintiff JX300. However, the Plaintiff specified “the combination ratio as a whole, not a part of each constituent element,” and the combination ratio is entirely different from that of other constituent elements, and thus, the combination ratio cannot be deemed as a combination ratio as a whole of JX300 merely for this reason.

② As above, on November 6, 2001, the invention of the title “compied rubber products” was disclosed by the Patent Gazette special case 2001-01-0102709 on November 6, 2001. Moreover, the invention of the title “Rubber products” for semiconductor gold was disclosed by the Patent Gazette No. 10-2001-00973 on January 31, 201. The Plaintiff’s content of the composition, mixing ratio and the Patent Gazette No. 2001-02709 on July 21, 200; the publication of the Patent Gazette No. 10-2001-009 on November 201; the combination ratio and mixing ratio of non-dispired ingredients as described in the aforementioned precedent No. 2 and precedent No. 90873 on November 2, 200, and the Defendants’ specific composition-10-300-70-10-300-37.

③ The Plaintiff’s composition components, composite ratio, and the publication of the Patent Gazette No. 2001-010102709, indicated in the enforcement case7 of the foregoing Patent Gazette differs from each other as follows (it is not deemed that the combination ratio as a whole of WS8100 was publicly announced even if the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is desirable to use the chemical substance as a standard of synthetic rubber 100 is made public on different documents, and it is merely a disclosure of the scope of partial composite ratio, and even if considering such circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the combination ratio as a whole was publicly announced as follows).

(4) The Plaintiff’s constituent ingredients, composite ratio, and publicational Patent Gazette’s (2001-01-0102709), and constituent constituent ingredients and mixing ratio as indicated in the implementation examples of No. 10-2001-00973 of the Patent Gazette are different as follows.

⑤ The Plaintiff’s composition ingredients, composite ratio, and the publication of the Patent Gazette No. 2001-0102709 and the publication of the patent Gazette No. 17, and the publication of the patent Gazette No. 10-2001-00973 are different as follows:

(6) The substance safety and health data on the Plaintiff’s WS8100 and WS7600 on the part of the Defendants’ assertion is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s material name was a publication provided to the Customer even according to the Defendants’ assertion. Even if the Plaintiff searched a chemical unique number (Chstracber and CAS No. 1) recorded in the substance safety and health data, it seems that the combination ratio listed in the substance safety and health data is entirely different from the combination ratio of this case, and the combination ratio of substance in the substance safety and health data cannot be identified solely on the substance safety and health data.

① A patent, etc. filed for Nnden Coins, W, and ECos, Ltd. is open to the public or is not specified as one of the constituent components for each composite composition, and the number of cases of mixing as possible is very large since several constituent components are examples. As such, the same mixing ratio as the mixing ratio in the instant case has already been made public by the patent, etc. filed for Nnden Coins, W, and ECos, Inc.

④ In order to analyze the content of the Plaintiff’s major products, YA professors of X-university Energy Convergence Engineering Department conducted a survey in advance on the patented invention in the relevant field, and analyzed the Plaintiff’s major products using specialized equipment, such as heat weight analysis devices (TGA), electric radioactive radioactive ray ECE (FE-SM), energy content analysis devices (PEA), and gas cropis analysis devices (GC-Mlass), but analyzed the contents different from the instant composite ratio (i.e., 15% of the products), and (ii) 10% of the products as a whole, and (iii) 40% of the products as a product-containing product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related product-related content.

3) The economic usefulness ratio of this case is the core element of the Plaintiff’s manufacture of rubber-type plastic metal refining and co-rating agents. The Plaintiff has long been in possession of 40 to 50% of the world market on rubber-type plastic metal refining and co-rating agents. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s use of the mixing ratio of this case was in possession of 40 to 50% of the world market on rubber-type plastic metal refining and co-rating agents. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 21 and 22, the Plaintiff’s JX300 product unit price used the mixing ratio of this case was KRW 3,577 on January 201, and the export price of JX30 products was KRW 3,577 on the raw materials of the Defendant’s JX300 product was considerably high at a rate of return on July 2010, it is necessary to obtain considerable economic benefits from the mixing of this case as well as economic benefits from the mixing of this case.

4) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being comprehensively taking account of the facts and evidence as seen earlier, Gap evidence and evidence No. 122 and evidence No. 123. The plaintiff's employees did not enter and leave the computer 20-year usage of confidential information, namely, the following circumstances: (a) one of the constituent elements of the plaintiff's three-year work instruction in preparation for the case of leakage of work instructions, etc.; (b) one of the three-year usage components of HEA company prior to the plaintiff's modification, indicated the name of the code; (c) one of the two-year usage of confidential information, including the combination ratio of this case; (d) one of the two-year usage of confidential information on the computer 20-year usage of confidential information; and (e) one of the two-year usage of confidential information for the plaintiff's use of confidential information on the computer 20-year usage of confidential information; and (e) the plaintiff's employees were not allowed to enter and leave the 20-year usage of the computer 20-year usage.

5) Sub-decisions

The mixing ratio of this case constitutes trade secrets as stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Whether the defendants' infringement of trade secrets and tort are committed or not.

1) As to Defendant B, C, F, E, and Defendant Company

Article 2 subparag. 3 (d) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that an act of using or disclosing trade secrets (including informing a specific person thereof while maintaining the secrecy) for the purpose of obtaining improper profits or causing damage to the owner of the trade secrets, an act of acquiring or using or disclosing the trade secrets so obtained without knowledge of the fact that the trade secrets are disclosed in accordance with subparagraph (d) or without knowledge of the involvement of such disclosure or due to gross negligence is an act of infringing trade secrets. In addition, as well as an act of producing a product by simply reproducing the technology which is a trade secret, an act of reducing errors or omitting necessary experiments by referring to another person’s trade secret, or an act of saving time and expenses needed for reverse design constitutes an act of using trade secrets prohibited by the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Meanwhile, an act of using the information prepared by the improvement does not constitute an act of using the trade secret. However, if the information is prepared by the original trade secret and its original use is recognized as an act of using the trade secret, it shall be deemed as an act of using the trade secret.

In light of the above legal principles, although Defendant B bears the duty to maintain confidentiality under the rules of employment and confidentiality agreement, it is reasonable to view that the following facts were known: (a) although Defendant B was aware that it had the purpose to produce the product identical to the Plaintiff, Defendant B was in possession of the product cost calculation table stating the mixing ratio of this case in addition to the work instruction received from Defendant C despite the burden of the duty to maintain confidentiality under the rules of employment; (b) Defendant B delivered the product cost calculation table to Defendant F and the Defendant Company; and (c) Defendant C knew that the mixing ratio of this case was made public in violation of the duty to maintain confidentiality (the Defendant Company was operated by Defendant B, F and E, and even if it knew of the above facts, even if it was unaware of such facts, it appears that Defendant B was aware that there was a significant difference in the mixing ratio of semiconductor products as well as the product content of this case, or that there was a significant difference in the composition of Defendant E company’s major production content or the product content of this case, which had been used as a substitute for Defendant E company’s main production.

① At around December 2009, Defendant C sent to Defendant B materials on the equipment list, tyring lines, and precautions at the time of ordering manufacturing facilities, etc. at the time of ordering manufacturing facilities, such as the Plaintiff, at around December 2009, at the request of the Defendant B to operate a factory. On February 2010, Defendant C sent to Defendant B materials on the equipment list for the establishment of a factory, equipment list, and directions at the time of ordering manufacturing facilities. After that request, Defendant B sent work instructions containing the composite ratio whenever requested.

② Around March 2010, Defendant C recommended the Plaintiff’s production team to move to the Defendant Company against Z and AA, who had been working in the Plaintiff’s production team. Around May 2010, even if the Plaintiff had been working in the Plaintiff, the Defendant attempted to install the Defendant Company’s factory machinery. On October 10 and 31, 201, the Plaintiff immediately joined the Defendant Company and was working as the production team leader of the Defendant Company and participated in the weekly business conference together with Defendant B, F, and E.

③ In addition to the work instruction given by Defendant C, Defendant B kept the product cost calculation file containing inputs for each constituent element of the Plaintiff’s major product on the Nowon-do computer.

④ The component content, input quantity, and composite ratio of the Plaintiff’s product JX300, which was stored in the Defendant Company’s Nowon-gu computer, are completely identical to the content indicated in the work order of the Defendant Company. The component content, input quantity, and composite ratio of the Defendant Company’s product AX-1000, which were entered in the production log of January 11, 2012, are identical or very similar as follows.

⑤ The Plaintiff’s product content, input quantity, and mixed ratio stated in the JS800’s product cost calculation table as of January 11, 2012, stated “A-174(Z-6030) as raw materials necessary for JS800 products” in the Defendant Company’s product content, input quantity, and composite ratio as of January 11, 2012. As the Defendant Company’s product content, the Defendant Company’s product content, as of January 11, 201, is identical or very similar as follows, the Defendant Company’s product content, input quantity, and composite ratio. As such, both A-174 and 6030 appear to be interchangeable with each other as the actual products, and KR-M100 and EN1000 are deemed to be interchangeable with each other, as seen below.

6) The component component, input quantity, mixing ratio, and the component component, input quantity, and mixing ratio of the defendant company's product AW-2000 listed in the product cost calculation table of the plaintiff's above product cost accounting table as of May 29, 2012 by the defendant company as of May 29, 2012 are identical or similar as follows (Si-69 and 6030 all are likely to be replaced with the product in actual eggs, and the B-50 P-50 p and P-50 are likely to be replaced with each other as seen in paragraph (10):

7. The component component, input quantity, mixing ratio, and the component component, input quantity, and mixing ratio of the defendant company's products AW-100 listed in the product cost calculation table as of May 29, 2012 by the defendant company as of May 29, 2012 are identical or similar as follows:

8. The component component, input quantity, mixing ratio, and the component component, input quantity, and mixing ratio of the defendant company's products AW-300 listed in the product cost calculation table as of September 29, 201 by the defendant company as of September 29, 201, are identical or similar as follows:

① On September 17, 201, the Defendant Company’s production date indicated as a combination of KR-M100 inputs by 2.826% (=K-M100 inputs by 17.71/500 inputs by 626.78) in the production date of the Defendant Company’s production date of September 19, 201. The Defendant Company’s production date of the same AX-3200 product and its production of the same AX-100 product by 2.826% (= EN-100 inputs by 16.1/ total inputs by 569.8) in the same composite ratio, instead of KR-M100, is indicated as a combination of 2.826% (the EN-1/total inputs by 100 inputs by 569.8) in the production date of the Defendant Company’s production date of September 19, 2011.

① The composition and mixing ratio of V-40 pd. V-40 p. V-40 p. and the Defendant Company’s composite material listed in the mixing List on August 8, 2011, which is the Plaintiff’s composite material listed in the work order stored in the computers used in AA, and the composition and mixing ratio of P-40 and P-50 p.m. are completely identical as follows. On September 22, 2011, the production date of the Defendant Company stated that the Defendant Company was made using B-50 pd. and 540 p.m., the Plaintiff’s composite material name.

① The Defendant Company’s work instruction form, which was stored on the computers used by the Defendant Company, is not only the same as the work instruction form used by the Plaintiff, but also the mixed file of the Defendant Company’s detailed AX-3000, which was stored on the computers used by the Defendant Company, is indicated as the Plaintiff’s product name.

② The title “Grade recall” confiscated from L’s L’s office established by Defendant B is written in the name of rubber-type semiconductors, JX300, JS800, and JS800, and the corresponding internal name is AX-100, AX-3000, and the corresponding internal name is written in the title of rubber-type semiconductor crying (Rbberax). WS7600, WS8100, WS750NS is an existing product, and the corresponding internal name is written in AW-100, AW-200, AW-300, and C-3000.

③ Since the establishment of April 12, 2010, the Defendant Company installed machinery and equipment necessary for manufacturing around May and June of the same year, and started to manufacture the Defendant Company’s major product from August 2010 to August 2010, which was 2 months after the date, and began to manufacture the Defendant Company’s major products. The materials submitted by the Defendants alone are insufficient to deem that the Defendant F and E started to conduct a research on rubber-type refining and co-rating systems and developed the mixing ratio independently by analyzing the products of other companies including the Plaintiff’s main products from October 209.

④ In relevant criminal cases, Defendant F stated to the effect that Defendant E was engaged in the production of semiconductor gold refining and co-rating products, using the contents of the patented invention disclosed on the Internet, and that Defendant E was engaged in research for one year and six months. Defendant E stated to the effect that, in the production of major products of the Defendant Company in the relevant criminal cases, he/she did not perform the test of his/her product. Defendant F also made a product upon receipt of work instructions from Defendant F in the relevant criminal case, and the production division at the Defendant Company stated to the effect that there was no customer test before the first product was released. Defendant C stated to the effect that, in the relevant criminal case, research and development costs were almost not incurred in the manufacture and sale of the product. Moreover, Defendant E did not perform research and development of semiconductor materials in semiconductor No. 2 in semiconductor No. 1, 2010, nor did he/she made a statement on semiconductor No. 1, 32, 2010.

⑤ On March 2010, upon the recommendation of Defendant C in a related criminal case, AA retired from the Plaintiff and entered the Defendant Company. Defendant F made a statement that he/she would produce the product by making the mixing table with the same mixing ratio as that of the Plaintiff’s J and K around July 2010.

2) In full view of the facts as seen earlier and the grounds for recognition and the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 11, the Plaintiff supplied the Plaintiff’s major products to N exclusively from around 2002, and N exclusively exported the products to a foreign country, and Defendant G seems to have been well aware of the Plaintiff’s major products as the general manager of N at the time, and Defendant G was established around June 2009, and Defendant G sold the Plaintiff’s major products exclusively by granting 0 the Plaintiff’s exclusive sales right to the country other than the certain products that the Plaintiff directly exported to the Defendant Company’s major products to the Plaintiff Company’s major business partners, including the Plaintiff Company’s major products, by providing the Plaintiff’s major products to the Plaintiff Company’s major business partners, including Q and S Co., Ltd., with the Plaintiff’s major products to be exported from the Plaintiff Company’s major products to the Plaintiff Company’s major business partners, and the Plaintiff Company’s major products to be exported to the Plaintiff Company’s major products to the Plaintiff Company, etc.

D. Prohibition of infringement of trade secrets is to prevent an infringer from taking advantage of the superior position of fair competitors or time saving, and the purpose of prohibition of infringement of trade secrets is to enable a person holding trade secrets to return to the original location without such infringement. Thus, the prohibition of infringement of trade secrets shall be limited to time to the extent necessary for ensuring fair and free competition and for accomplishing the purpose of protecting personal trust relationship. In determining the scope, the scope of infringement of trade secrets shall be reasonably determined by taking into account the content and difficulty of technical information, the period and method of obtaining technological information as trade secrets, the period and time required for maintaining the trade secrets, the effort and method for maintaining the trade secrets, the time necessary for acquiring such technical information by a legitimate method such as independent development or reverse design, the comparison between the protection period of patent rights, etc., the duration of which is set as a kind of intellectual property rights, and the personal and physical facilities of the parties as indicated in other records (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da24528, Feb. 13, 1998).

In light of the above facts and circumstances, i.e., rubber Sejong Co., Ltd.’s development of semiconductors at the time of the above recognition, i.e., if the Plaintiff’s research and development of rubber-type machinery and equipment, the product quality varies depending on which kind of raw materials were mixed at a certain rate. However, it is difficult to readily develop the mixing ratio by using information disclosed to the public in the Patent Gazette because the combination ratio by ingredients is not similar to the combination ratio, and it is difficult to find out the combination ratio of the Plaintiff’s major products accurately, even if the Defendant Co., Ltd.’s construction and development of semiconductors was carried out by the Defendant Co., Ltd. at the time of the above research and development, and the Defendant Co., Ltd.’s construction and development of rubber-type machinery and equipment was carried out by the Defendant Co., Ltd. at the time of the above research and development. However, the Plaintiff’s representative director, who was an expert in the field of rubber materials, was established at least for the first time of the research and development of rubber-type machinery and equipment.

Therefore, as to Defendant B, the Plaintiff is obligated to protect the Plaintiff’s trade secret until December 30, 2015, when five years have elapsed from December 31, 2010, and as to Defendant C, until five years have elapsed from October 31, 201, when the Plaintiff retired from office, until October 30, 2016, when five years have passed from October 31, 201, when the termination period is earlier than the above period, until December 30, 2015. However, in the case of Defendant B, F, E, and Defendant Company, the protection period has already expired as of the date this judgment was sentenced, and the claim against Defendant C cannot be accepted, and therefore, Defendant C shall not export or lend major products of the Defendant Company, use, transfer or lease, transfer or lease, offer of the instant products, or make a mixing of the instant offer to a third party by using the composite ratio of this case by October 30, 2016.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff also sought prohibition against Defendant G from using, transferring, lending, exporting, or subscribing for transfer or lending major products of Defendant Company. However, as long as the period of trade secret protection of Defendant B, F, E, and Defendant Company has expired, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant G is without merit.

3. Determination as to claim for damages

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

Article 14-2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that where a person whose business profit has been infringed due to an unfair competition claims compensation for damages, the victim's assertion and burden of proof regarding the damages shall be mitigated, and where it is obvious that the damages have not occurred, the victim shall not be held liable for damages. However, in light of the purport of the provision, the degree of assertion and proof as to the occurrence of damages shall be sufficient to assert and prove the possibility of the damages or the existence of the possibility. Therefore, where the infringer and the victim have proved that the infringer are operating the same kind of business, it shall be presumed that the infringer suffered business damages through the unfair competition unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da21666, Jul. 25, 2013 related to Article 67 of the Trademark Act). Therefore, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the infringement of the combined ratio under Article 5 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (the defendant G bears tort liability under the Civil Act, but the remaining defendants' participation in the tort and the scope of liability shall be jointly and jointly liable for the defendants.

B. Scope of liability for damages

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Pursuant to Article 14-2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Plaintiff shall calculate the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s operating profit ratio out of the amount obtained by multiplying the sales volume of the Defendant’s major products from August 2010 to December 2012 by the unit price of the Plaintiff’s major products (as a result, from August 2010 to December 2010, KRW 90,751,000, KRW 564,000 in the year 590,564,000 in the year 201, KRW 623,186,00 in the period from January 201 to September 2012, KRW 623,186,00 in the calculation of the amount of damages for three months from December 2012 to December 3, 201 (as a result, the Plaintiff’s average sales profits for 207, KRW 186,00 in the calculation of the amount of damages for 20313 years 201.

2) Determination

There is no evidence to identify the sales volume of the Defendant Company’s major products sold by the Defendants during the period from August 2010 to October 2013, and the profit per unit of the Plaintiff’s major product model. [After multiplying the sales volume of the Defendant Company’s major products by the unit price of the Plaintiff’s main product, the Plaintiff files a claim by multiplying the sales volume of the Plaintiff’s major products by the sales volume of each model of the Plaintiff’s major products, not the profit per model, by the operating profit rate for all of the rubber-type products sold by the Plaintiff, rather than the profits rate per model-based products.] The claim under Article 14-2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is without merit.

Meanwhile, the Defendants asserted that the amount of damages suffered by the Defendant Company from the sale of the Defendant Company’s main products under Article 14-2(2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act is equal to the amount of profit earned by the Defendant Company. However, the Defendant Company deemed to have sold so-called anti-dumping sales in order to secure customers against the Plaintiff, and thus, it is improper to calculate the amount of damages under the above provision. Therefore, the Defendants

Therefore, in this case, pursuant to Article 14-2(5) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, a reasonable amount of damages should be recognized based on the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence. In full view of the above circumstances and the circumstances revealed in the whole pleadings, the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendants shall be calculated by multiplying the amount obtained by multiplying the amount of 1.49,81 billion won [30,891km according to the sales volume of the Defendant’s major products during the infringement period. It is reasonable to determine the amount of damages by 11,688 won (minimum supply rate of 10,380 won + maximum supply rate of 12,97 won), which appears to be the average value of the supply unit and the highest supply unit value of the Plaintiff’s major products during the infringement period, by 300,891km x 11,680,000 won, and less than 12,000 won] of the Plaintiff’s rubber semiconductor type of semiconductor type of semiconductor type of products.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to jointly pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from October 31, 2013, which is the date when the said damages occurred, to January 19, 2016, and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the following day to the date when they fully repay the said damages.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are justified within the scope of each of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and new offender

For the effect of a judge:

Judges Choi Jin-jin

(i)as the weak of Carbon, parts of rubber in rubber prior to the manufacture of the final rubber products, such as the original Tarbon, straw, etc.

The term "carbon" refers to an intermediate product in an anti-processed form made by mixing (carbon), mistakenly, reinforced agents, active agents, etc.

2) The 7th example was added to the 3rd weight of MEA to the 5th example. The total weight of the 5th example except MEA is 1480g(= rubber 1000g).

Since light chemical 30g + practical 400g + mountain 50g, MA must be added to 44.4g(=1480g X3%).

(iii)1450 only that it has been used for the weight implementation 5 per cent (the weight of 14310g and 20 other weight, per cent) an additional 5 per cent (the weight of 20 other weight, per cent). The gross weight is 17150g and the weight is 171550g (21=the rubber 100g + the A, and the chemical aluminium;

50g + MEA 70g + 400g + DNA protruding 30g, so 50% of 50g is 775g(=1550gx 50%).

4) The annual schedule 2 is already strokeed 3 + the water purification 5 + the water purification 2 + the water purification 2, the comparison table 2 is 10,000 already strokeed.

B. Since the Defendants expressed all of them as a parliamentary system, the Defendants stated 10 "10" as it is as it is. hereinafter, 4, 5

The same shall also apply to parts.

5) The Plaintiff’s raw material code (H’s English drug code) of the MEA (Monomenians) as a detailed ingredient ingredient. V and MA refer to the same substance.

There is no dispute in that point.

6) It is a kind of detailed tasks.