2011Gaz. 45458 Prohibition, etc. against infringement of trade secrets

A Stock Company

1. B

2. C.

3. D;

4. E.

5. F;

November 8, 2013

December 6, 2013

1. Each part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of possession and storage order with respect to the documents, computer programs, computer files, photographs, and other goods stored or displayed in the “other places” in the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants, and their semi-finished products and production facilities used in the production thereof, shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendants shall not disclose, provide, or use the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to any person other than the Plaintiff.

3. Defendant C, D, E, and F shall not engage in the manufacture, research, and development of semiconductor equipment and its auxiliary work using information listed in Appendix 1 set forth in Annex B, Inc.

4. The Defendant shall discard each of the documents, computer programs, computer files, and photographs, in which the information listed in the Schedule of Attached 1, kept in the head office, branches, offices, factories, and warehouses, is stated.

5. The Defendants shall not produce, sell, transfer, or advertise products listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

6. The Defendants shall not reproduce or distribute the program files listed in the No. 1 to 388 in the [Attachment I] list, or prepare the program using them, and shall not indicate the Defendants’ names on the said files.

7. The Defendants shall pay to each Plaintiff 4,118,841,283 won, and 5% per annum from May 27, 2011 to December 6, 2013, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

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

9. 1/5 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendants.

10.Paragraphs 2 to 7 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants shall discard the documents, computer programs, computer files, and photographs stated in the separate sheet Nos. 2, 3, 55, 6 and 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment, and the day of complete payment, to the execution officer delegated by the plaintiff, as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 2, 3, 55, 6 and 2, 500, 500 won and 5,000 won and 20% per annum from the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants

1) The Plaintiff and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) are companies specializing in the production of semiconductor equipment.

2) 피고 C은 2005, 9. 5.부터 2009. 3. 20.까지 원고 회사의 레이저 제어 프로그램 개발연구원으로 근무하면서 반도체 장비 및 산업용 장비의 레이저 제어 및 가공 소프트웨어 프로그램 개발업무를 담당하였고, 피고 D은 2003. 8. 25.부터 2008. 9. 30.까지 원고 회사에 근무하면서 반도체 장비의 사용자 인터페이스 기술인 MMI(Machine Man Interface) 개발업무를 담당하였으며, 피고 E는 2003. 12. 15.부터 2008. 10. 31.까지 원고 회사에 근무하면서 반도체 장비의 모터, 센서 및 장비운용에 관한 시퀀스 제어기 술을 담당하였고, 피고 F은 2008. 4. 1.부터 2009. 6. 30.까지 원고 회사에 근무하면서 레이저 가공기술개발 및 테스트, 가공 파라미터 추출 업무를 담당하였는데, 위 피고들은 모두 원고 회사의 시스템 제어연구부에서 같이 근무하였다가, 2009. 4. 1.경부터 2009. 7. 1.경까지 사이에 피고 B로 전직하여 근무하고 있다.

B. Plaintiff’s technical information

1) 반도체 소자의 소형화를 위해 서로 다른 기판 위에 수 개의 패키지를 독립적으로 제작한 다음 각각의 패키지를 연결하는 것이 PoP(Package on Package) 기술인데, 이 기술 중 1세대 PoP 기술은 반도체 소자를 습기나 외부의 충격으로부터 보호하기 위해 부도체(EMC; Epoxy Mold Compound. 이하 'EMC'라 한다)를 반도체 소자에만 형성하였으나 패키지 공정 중 열팽창으로 발생하는 불균형이나 휨 현상이 발생하는 단점이 있었다. 이에 2세대 PoP 기술은 반도체 소자뿐만 아니라 PoP 패키지 전면에 EMC를 형성하여 이러한 문제를 해결하였으나 반도체 소자와 기판 사이에도 EMC로 채워지게 되므로 EMC를 관통하여 솔더볼(Solder Ball; 반도체 소자와 기판 사이의 전기·전자적 연결을 위해 반도체 소자에 형성한 납구슬)까지 통로(Via)를 형성하는 TMV(Through Mold Via) 레이저 드릴링 기술(이하 'TMV 기술'이라 한다)이 필요하다.

2) As such, TMV technologies that form a passage to EMC by Razers are to minimize damage to razalls and prevent the collapse of barriers in the process of forming adjacent passages.

Since January 2008, the Plaintiff started the development of TMFV equipment that was embodied with such technology, and completed the technology capable of semiconductor mass production around February 2009, and supplied TMFV equipment to amplco Co., Ltd.

3) 원고는 TMV 장비 제조를 위해 시퀀스 프로그램 기술, MMI 프로그램 기술, 데 이터베이스 관련 기술, SECS/GEM 통신 프로그램 기술, 레이저 제어 및 가공 기술 등 (이하 '원고 기술정보'라 한다)을 보유하고 있다. 현재 전 세계적으로 TMV 기술이 구현된 장비를 생산하는 업체는 원고, 피고 B, 주식회사 G(이하 'G'라 한다)뿐이다.다. 원고의 기술정보 관리와 비밀유지 약정

1) The Plaintiff prepared and retained the Plaintiff’s technical information as a computer file. The storage room in which the Plaintiff’s technical information is kept shall be a separate corrective device, allow access only to employees with access authority, and only the employees with access authority to handle the information may enter and access the computer in which the Plaintiff’s technical information is stored so that they can access the computer after obtaining certification. In addition, the employees would obtain approval from the head of the team or department to which they belong when using the Nowon-do or the USB storage device for business trip, and the Plaintiff’s technical information would be accessible to the file containing the Plaintiff’s technical information.

2) Defendant C, D, E, and F entered the Plaintiff Company as well as research and development information and production technology information that he/she acquired while in office, concluded an agreement on confidentiality with the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement on Confidentiality”) by preparing and submitting “a written pledge of confidentiality” to the effect that, “I will not divulge any confidential information of the Plaintiff Company, as well as any other person’s business information, such as personnel, business, management, and purchase, belongs to the Company’s trade secret and, in particular, would be disadvantageous or favorable to his/her competitor if leaked, will not divulge any confidential information of the Plaintiff Company.”

D. Divulgence and use of Plaintiff’s technical information

1) On March 2009, Defendant C, who was in office in the Plaintiff Company, copied 35 files, which were stored in the said Nopt computer drive by linking his personal computer and the Noptn computer received by the Plaintiff Company, with a brand line to the same IP address and sharing network, and then copied 35 files, which are described in the Plaintiff’s technical information, a document file containing the information, a document file realizing the information, a document file program, and a program file in the Plaintiff’s attached list 1, which consisting of the implementation file of the said Nopt program, on his own computer without the Plaintiff’s permission, and then copied 401 copies of the said files on the Defendant B’s business-use computer after leaving his occupation to Defendant B.

2) After Defendant D, E, and F retired from employment to Defendant B, Defendant C provided some files of the program files listed in the above attached Table 1, which were reproduced by Defendant C from Defendant C, and copied them to Defendant C’s own computers for business purposes.

3) Around July 2006, Defendant D, who was in office in the Plaintiff Company, sent and stored part of the MI program from the MI that was received from the Plaintiff Company to its web mail (H). On June 2009, Defendant D, after leaving his office to Defendant B, stored the part of the MI program in the name of “common book.h.” on the company’s computer for business purposes.

4) The Defendants used 85 program files listed in the separate sheet No. 3, which are some parts of the program files listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (However, among them, the "Common Book No. 69" files are files stored as above by Defendant D) to manufacture equipment listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter the "Defendant equipment of this case"), or used them as internal educational material (the specific details of use are as shown in the separate sheet No. 3), and some of them were used as original files, and some of them were modified and used to change the "I" part of the Plaintiff's name to "J, which corresponds to the Plaintiff's name."

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 3 through 6, 11, 18, 24 through 42, 51, 54, 55 (which include each number), Eul's evidence Nos. 5, 6, 20, 23, and argument Nos. 2

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The files listed in the separate sheet No. 1 are trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter “Unfair Competition Prevention Act”), which are fully satisfied the requirements of non-official nature, economic usefulness, and confidentiality as the files embodied the Plaintiff’s technical information.

2) Although Defendant C, D, E, and F have a duty to maintain the above trade secret as a secret under each of the instant confidentiality agreements, they used the files listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to manufacture the Defendant’s equipment, which constitutes an act of trade secret infringement pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 3 (d) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

3) Defendant B knowingly acquired the said file with the knowledge that the files listed in the separate sheet No. 1 constitute the Plaintiff’s trade secret, and used it in manufacturing the Defendant’s equipment. This constitutes an act of infringement of trade secret under Article 2 subparag. 35 and (f) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

4) In addition, the No. 1 or 388 files, among the files listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list (hereinafter referred to as “the instant program files”) are the program files in which the Plaintiff has copyright. Since the Defendants reproduced them without the Plaintiff’s permission and sold them to some programs with the Defendant’s name, they constitute infringement of the right of reproduction, distribution, the right of production of derivative works, and the right of attribution.

5) Therefore, as a claim for prohibition and prevention under Article 10 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Plaintiff shall disclose, provide, or refrain from using the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to any person other than the Plaintiff, and discard the documents, etc. stated in the separate sheet No. 1. The Plaintiff shall seek the prohibition of the production and sale of the Defendant’s equipment of this case and the Defendants’ possession of the above equipment and its production equipment, and order the enforcement officer entrusted by the Plaintiff to keep the equipment, and seek the prohibition of engaging in the work using the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 from Defendant C, D, E, and F.

6) In addition, the Plaintiff seeks the prohibition and prevention claim under Article 123 of the Copyright Act that prohibits the Defendants from reproducing, distributing, or using the instant program files, or from indicating the Defendants’ name on the said files.

7) Meanwhile, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the above infringement of trade secrets and copyright infringement. The amount of damages is presumed to be calculated by multiplying the quantity of the Defendant’s equipment sold by Defendant B by the unit quantity of the Plaintiff’s trade secrets pursuant to Article 14-2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, by the profit amount that the Plaintiff could have derived. The Plaintiff’s amount of damages calculated pursuant to the above provision is KRW 8,146,797,516. The Plaintiff’s amount of damages is KRW 8,146,797,516. The Plaintiff seek against the Defendants and damages for delay

B. Summary of the defendants' assertion

1) Some of the files listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 list may not be trade secrets with the content that is easily realized if a person with knowledge about programming is already using a license publicly announced through the Internet or programming-related book, or a person with knowledge about programming. Furthermore, the file itself cannot be trade secrets, and the Plaintiff’s unique technical information realized in the file constitutes trade secrets. The Plaintiff did not specify it.

2) Of the files listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 list, the remaining files, excluding those listed in the separate sheet No. 3, were not used for the Defendant’s equipment, and the majority of the files listed in the separate sheet No. 3, were stored in the equipment related to the Defendant’s equipment. However, the files used to operate the Defendant’s equipment do not actually be used for the operation of the Defendant’s equipment. Of the files listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list, there are approximately 20 files that have not yet been completed. However, such files cannot be used.

4) Of the files listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 list, document files (No. 392 through 396, 399, 4001) were prepared for education in writing in terms of design drawings and technical explanations regarding the abstract professional affairs of the control program developed by the Plaintiff, and are irrelevant to the operation of the Defendant’s equipment. Thus, the Defendants did not actually use them.

5) Since the Defendants deleted all the files listed in the separate sheet No. 3 from the Defendant’s equipment, the Defendants are not likely to use the said files.

6) Since the files listed in the attached list 3 are not directly displayed in the process of operating the Defendant’s equipment of this case, the issue of whether this is included in the concept of “use of trade secrets” should be viewed as having no causation between the Defendants’ act and the Plaintiff’s damage.

7) The data submitted by the Plaintiff to prove the Plaintiff’s profit amount is voluntarily produced by the Plaintiff. According to the data above, the Plaintiff’s operating profit rate reaches 40%, which cannot be believed when considering the general operating profit rate of the manufacturing industry. According to the consolidated financial statements publicly announced by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s average operating profit rate from around 2009 to 2012 is 10.72%, and thus, the said profit rate should be based.

8) Article 14-2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "the amount of damage shall be limited to the amount calculated by multiplying the amount of damage by the unit quantity per unit by the quantity obtained by subtracting the quantity of the goods actually sold from the quantity of the goods that a person whose business interest has been infringed, could have produced." Thus, the plaintiff should first specify the quantity of the goods that the plaintiff could have produced and the quantity of the

9) Around May 2009, Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd., the main consumer of the Defendant’s equipment of this case (hereinafter “TMV”) assessed each equipment of the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and G, and determined that Defendant B’s equipment is excellent and that Defendant B’s equipment is used. During this process, the Plaintiff’s technological power was assessed as not only Defendant B but also G.

Therefore, even if there was no act by the Defendants, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff could not supply his semiconductor equipment to Samsung Electronic with the Plaintiff’s technical power. This constitutes “unsaleable for reasons other than infringement” under the proviso of Article 14-2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and thus, the quantity which the Defendants could not sell such equipment should be excluded pursuant to the above proviso.

10) The sales price of the Defendant’s equipment of this case includes both the cost of hardware and the cost of software parts. Of software costs, the part pertaining to the file recorded in the separate sheet No. 3 is extremely part of the cost. Therefore, in calculating the Plaintiff’s damages, the ratio of the files actually used to contribute to the Defendant’s equipment should be considered.

11) Prohibition against infringement of trade secrets shall not be unlimited, but be limited within the necessary time range. Considering efforts, cost, difficulty, etc. of the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is reasonable to view that Defendant C’s termination period to be from March 20, 2009 to September 20, 2009, which is six months after the retirement of the Plaintiff Company.

3. Determination

A. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit

ex officio, the plaintiff is seeking the destruction of documents, computer programs, computer files, and photographs, which are kept or displayed in the "other places" other than the main office, branch, place of business, factory, and warehouse of the defendants against the defendants in the purport of the claim, and the plaintiff is demanding the execution officer to order the cancellation of possession of the semi-finished products and production facilities used in the production thereof and order the defendants to keep them in custody.

However, since 'other places' cannot be specified in detail, the goods stored in the place can not be specified. Thus, if a judgment is rendered, such as the purport of the claim sought by the plaintiff, it can not be specified in the judgment itself, and the enforcement agency can not execute the judgment.

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the destruction of documents, computer programs, computer files, photographs, products stored or displayed in other places, and the half-finished products and the production facilities used in the production thereof are all unlawful.

B. Judgment on the merits

1) Determination as to the assertion of trade secret infringement

A) Whether the files listed in the separate sheet 1 falls under trade secrets

(1) Legal principles as to the meaning of trade secrets

The term "trade secret" under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act means any production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which are not known to the public, and have an independent economic value. The term "patent secret" refers to any information that is not known to the public by considerable effort, because it is not known to many and unspecified persons, such as the publication, etc., and thus, it is impossible to obtain such information without going through the holder (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da60610, Sept. 23, 2004). The term "any person has an independent economic value" means any information that can obtain competition benefits from competitors by using such information, or that considerable expenses or effort is needed for the acquisition or development of such information. If any information satisfies all the above requirements, the above information is not completed at the stage of business activities immediately, or it is not available to a third party, or it is not available to a third party, or it is not possible to obtain such information through an experiment (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da262585, Feb. 208, 2005).

‘Keeping the information confidential by considerable effort’ refers to a situation in which it is recognizable that the information is maintained and managed as confidential objectively, such as making or notifying a person who may access the information, restricting access to the information, or imposing a duty to maintain confidentiality on the person who has access to the information (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3435, Jul. 10, 2008).

(2) Whether it constitutes trade secrets

The facts acknowledged earlier are as follows: ① files listed in the separate sheet Nos. 17, 21 through 23, and 51 (including each number number), which are acknowledged as being comprehensively based on the overall purport of each description and pleading, are composed of the explanatory document files on the file, implementation files, program design drawings, and technical information based on the Plaintiff’s technical information and the program files that control the operation of TMV equipment and provide the operator with necessary information. After the commencement of the development of TMV equipment, the Plaintiff has been continuously engaged in considerable time, cost, and effort to create the above program, and revised the same through continuous testing, and recorded a separate history of the change using the program. ② The files listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 include specific numerical values of each person in the process of determining the operation of TMV equipment according to the program composed of the above files, and various information, such as know-hows or know-hows, and ④ the Plaintiff’s economic information and development of the new list, including the Plaintiff’s new and unspecified list No. 1.

(3) Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion

Even if a source file constituting a program is disclosed to a certain extent, it is also important for the technological force to correct and combine the source files disclosed to the public (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do11409, Jul. 24, 2008). The source files asserted by the Defendant to be disclosed are only part of the program files of this case, and the program files of this case (excluding files No. 389, out of the files listed in the attached list 1) do not constitute a separate program independently. It is not only one file comprising a program for the efficient programming, but also one file comprising a program for the control of TMV equipment. If each file is separated from several files for the efficient programming, each file is referring to another file, and if some files are linked to the file and operated, the remaining files are excluded, so it is difficult to readily understand the content of the program files of this case as one of the entire files through the program list, and thus, it is difficult to understand the content of the program of this case only by 3 different files.

Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 51 and 57 as to the files listed in the separate sheet Nos. 352 L. 352 among the files listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that, in the case of the files listed in the separate sheet No. 51 and 57, the files were developed and provided to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was unable to obtain the above file No. 57,58 from M., but in full view of the respective descriptions and arguments stated in the separate sheet No. 57,58, the Plaintiff was provided with the above files under a technical cooperation contract concluded with M., and the above files can be used only by the Plaintiff and M., even if the Plaintiff did not know of the above file’s function, it can be acknowledged that the above files were delivered to the Plaintiff, and thus, it does not necessarily constitute trade secrets as well as the contents of the bar code No. 352, if the specific files were reflected in the specific hardware or specific technological capabilities, and it can also be known that the above files function of the file No. 6.

Furthermore, there is no reason to view that the act of specifying program files containing various technological ideas as trade secrets is not permitted unless there is any problem in understanding the elements of trade secrets as seen earlier, and in light of the fact that the specific figures of each person who determines the operation of equipment as in the instant case, or the trade secrets, such as know-how and the know-how of the proton technique itself formed in the process, are the most appropriate way to specify the relevant program files as trade secrets, etc., the Plaintiff cannot be said to have failed to specify the trade secrets.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion about the trade secret of the files listed in the attached list 1 is without merit.

B) Whether the Defendants infringed trade secrets

Article 2 subparagraph 3 (d) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "the act of a person who is obligated to maintain a trade secret in accordance with a contract relationship, etc. shall use or disclose the trade secret for the purpose of obtaining improper profits or causing damage to the owner of the trade secret"; "the act of obtaining the trade secret or using or disclosing it to the public with knowledge of the fact that the trade secret was disclosed in accordance with item (d) or the fact that the disclosure of the trade secret was involved or without such knowledge due to gross negligence; and "the act of using or disclosing the trade secret with the knowledge of the fact that the trade secret was disclosed in accordance with item (d) or the fact that the disclosure of the trade secret was involved or without such knowledge due to gross negligence"

As seen earlier, Defendant C, who is obligated to maintain trade secrets under the contract with the Plaintiff upon entering into a confidentiality agreement with the Plaintiff, has divulged files listed in the separate sheet No. 1, which constitute trade secrets, to deliver them to Defendant D, E, and F without the Plaintiff’s permission, and used them in manufacturing the Defendant’s equipment. ② The above Defendants D, E, and F also knew that Defendant C was working for the Plaintiff company and participated in the Plaintiff’s technical information as above (the above Defendants were both involved in the Plaintiff’s business, and they entered into a confidentiality agreement with the Plaintiff, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the files listed in the separate sheet No. 1 falls under the Plaintiff’s trade secrets and the disclosure of them constitutes the Plaintiff’s trade secrets infringement. Even if Defendant C was unaware of the aforementioned information, it was grossly negligent in not knowing the fact that the files listed in the separate sheet No. 1 falls under the Plaintiff’s trade secrets, and Defendant C also used them in manufacturing the Defendant’s equipment, and it was reasonable to deem the Defendants’ act of acquiring or using the aforementioned equipment as Defendant CV’s trade secrets.

C) Determination on prohibition and prevention claims

(1) Determination as to the cause of claim

According to the facts acknowledged above, the plaintiffs can file a claim against the defendants, the infringer, against prohibition and prevention of infringement of trade secrets, and necessary measures therefor pursuant to Article 10 (1) and (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Thus, the defendants shall not disclose, provide, or use the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to persons other than the plaintiff. Defendants C, D, E, and F shall not engage in the production, research, development, and support of semiconductor equipment using the information listed in the separate sheet No. 1 in the defendant B. The defendants shall destroy documents, computer programs, computer files, and photographs stated in the separate sheet No. 1, which are stored in the main office, branch, business office, factory, and warehouse, and shall not produce, sell, transfer, or advertise products listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

However, the claim for the cancellation of possession of the product kept or displayed in the head office, branch, business office, factory, warehouse and its semi-finished products and the production facilities used for their production and the order for its custody is not accepted in the case of a provisional disposition which constitutes a provisional disposition, and the claim for such provisional measure is not accepted in the case of the merits which determine the ultimate legal relationship between the parties.

(2) Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion

On the other hand, Article 10 (1) and (2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act ("the Unfair Competition Prevention Act") provides that a person whose trade secret has been infringed may claim measures necessary for the prohibition and prevention in addition to the prohibition of the infringement. Considering that the defendant C copied the files listed in the separate sheet No. 1 to the defendant B's office computer, and the program files listed in the separate sheet No. 1 which form the majority of the files listed in the separate sheet No. 1 need to be handled as a whole, not as seen earlier, as an individual file, but as a whole, as a whole. In order to prevent the defendants' infringement of trade secrets in the future, it is necessary to prohibit the use, etc. of all files listed in the separate sheet No. 1, and actually, the subject of prohibition and prevention is not limited only by the files listed in the separate sheet No. 3 list used to manufacture the defendant

In addition, it is difficult to accept the assertion that there is a file not completed in the file or that the file used in the production of the Defendant’s equipment is only 20 copies or that it is irrelevant to the operation of the Defendant’s equipment in the case of a document file is not limited to the production of the Defendant’s equipment in the instant case. Trade secrets may also be included in the completed file, and such file may also be used through subsequent improvement.

Furthermore, even if the Defendants deleted all the files listed in the separate sheet 3 list from the Defendant’s equipment of this case ( there is no evidence to acknowledge this), it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendants’ trade secrets are not likely to be infringed in the future.

In addition, the defendants are asserting that the period of prohibition and prevention claim should be limited to not more than six months. However, as seen earlier, the plaintiff's trade secret is related to technical information only several companies all over the world, and the plaintiff's technical information has reduced its value as a technology more advanced than the above technology. Thus, as alleged by the defendants, the prohibition and prevention of the infringement of trade secrets cannot be limited to not more than six months or a certain period.

Therefore, the defendants' arguments related to prohibition and prevention claim are without merit.

D) Determination on the claim for damages

(1) The occurrence of damage claim

As seen earlier, the Defendants are liable for compensating for the damages of the Plaintiff due to the infringement of the Plaintiff’s trade secrets pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that there is no causation between the Defendants’ act and the Defendant’s act even if there is no file to be used directly in the course of operating the Defendant’s equipment. However, as seen earlier, the files recorded in the separate sheet No. 3 are stored in the Defendant’s equipment. As such, the files stored in the separate sheet No. 3 are presumed to be the files used in the course of operating the Defendant’s equipment (it is very exceptional to store the files not to be used in the equipment) and the Defendant’s equipment. As to the fact that the above files are not entirely used in the Defendant’s equipment, the Defendants must actively prove that the aforementioned files are not used, and the Defendants merely claim that the instant equipment and the Plaintiff’s TMV equipment are different in the composition of the hardware or the Plaintiff’s structure of the software, and thus, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

(2) Damages

(A) Article 14-2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that where a person whose business profit is infringed claims compensation for damages, the amount calculated by multiplying the quantity of the article transferred by the person whose business profit is infringed, by the profit per unit of the article that could have been sold in the absence of the infringement of the trade secret, may be the amount of damages suffered by the person whose business profit is infringed. In this case, the amount of damages shall be limited to the amount calculated by multiplying the amount obtained by subtracting the quantity of the article actually sold from the quantity of the article that the person whose business profit was infringed, by the profit per unit of the article that could have been sold in the absence of the infringement of the trade secret."

Therefore, in order to calculate the amount of damages pursuant to the above provision, ① the quantity of the goods that the Defendants had caused infringement on trade secrets and ② the amount of profit per unit quantity of the goods that the Plaintiff could have sold in the absence of the Defendants’ act should be revealed. First, according to the Plaintiff’s written statement (Evidence A47) as to the quantity of the goods transferred, the Defendant’s equipment sold by the Defendants from 2009 up to 209 was 1, 209, 2009, 9, 2010, 212, 2012, 201, 1, 4, 2010, 201, 201, 4, 2010, 2010, 4, 2010, 201, 3, 2010, 4, 2010, 4, 201, 206, 201, 4, 2010, 2010, 4, 6, 2010.

B. The Defendants’ assertion that the amount of damages is calculated pursuant to Article 14-2(1) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (2) and Article 14-2(1) of the former Unfair Competition Prevention Act is not appropriate unless the amount of damages is calculated pursuant to the above provision. However, in calculating the amount of damages below, it should be considered as an element to be taken into account as a whole in the arguments.

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

i) Article 14-2(5) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act provides that "it may recognize a reasonable amount of damages based on the overall purport of the pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence where it is extremely difficult to prove the amount of damages due to the nature of the facts in question, even though damage was incurred in a lawsuit for infringement of trade secrets

As seen earlier, the data submitted by the Plaintiff cannot guarantee objectivity, and even if the Plaintiff submitted basic data, such as material cost, outsourcing cost, change manufacturing cost, sales commission, and other sales cost related to the Plaintiff’s rash equipment, there is still doubt as to whether the Plaintiff can trust such data, such as the Plaintiff’s possibility to select and submit data, or whether the Defendants are true. Moreover, it is very difficult for the Defendants to either disclose the profits of Defendant B arising from the sale of the Defendant’s equipment or submit relevant data, and thus, the Plaintiff itself cannot estimate the amount of damages pursuant to Article 14-2(2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Therefore, in this case, even though the fact that the Plaintiff suffered damage due to the Defendants’ act of infringing on the Defendant’s trade secret, it is extremely difficult to prove the fact necessary to prove the amount of damages due to the nature of the relevant fact, the court can recognize a reasonable amount of damages based on the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of examination of evidence.

ii) Therefore, according to the above provision, if the Plaintiff’s losses are calculated based on the Plaintiff’s technical value of Samsung 1’s Samsung 2, the Plaintiff’s sales value and sales value of the Plaintiff’s Samsung 1’s Samsung 2, and the Plaintiff’s profit ratio is the same as that indicated in the list 4). ② As seen earlier, the Defendants’ profit ratio from the Plaintiff’s data is extremely high, and there is no other data that can be known the profit ratio of the Defendant’s equipment. ③ As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s business entity that produces TMV technology can not be deemed to have a very high level than the profit ratio of the Plaintiff’s general manufacturing equipment, and the Plaintiff’s profit ratio of the Plaintiff’s 1,00,000 won can not be seen as the Plaintiff’s sales value of the 3rd 3rd 2,00,000 won 2,000 won 7,000,0000 won 2,000 won 1,201.

3) As seen earlier, the parts of the Defendant’s equipment consisting of the hardware and software parts. Since the Defendant’s equipment is for the purpose of performing a specific work in semiconductor manufacturing process, it seems that the value of the equipment would considerably contribute much to the software that controls its operation rather than the hardware itself, and the technical capabilities that are embodied in the software, and the remaining files stored in the Defendant’s equipment are also modified or are likely to be made by using technological information obtained from the said files, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s contribution to the value of the Defendant’s equipment is 80%.

iv) Therefore, when calculating the Plaintiff’s amount of damages by applying the above limit profit ratio and contribution ratio, ① For rashing equipment, profit per unit is KRW 126,222,311 (i.e., total sales revenue of KRW 10,097,784,90, X limit profit ratio of KRW 25% and the total sales revenue of KRW 20%, and less than KRW 20). Of the Defendant’s equipment, the amount of damages is 4,54,03,196, ② rashing equipment is 74,593,64 won per unit (i.e., total sales revenue of KRW 7,210,718,945, KRW 30, KRW 290, KRW 250, KRW 250, KRW 250, KRW 258, KRW 259, KRW 250, KRW 250, KRW 259, KRW 258, KRW 259, KRW 2585.

v) Ultimately, the Defendants, the joint tortfeasor, are obligated to pay to each Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 4,118,841,283 as damages incurred by the infringement of trade secrets and KRW 20% per annum under the Civil Act from May 27, 2011 to December 6, 2013, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute on the existence or scope of the instant obligation from May 27, 201 that the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff was served on the Defendants.

2) Determination on the assertion of copyright infringement

A) Whether the Plaintiff’s copyright has been infringed or not constitutes a computer program work as defined in Article 2 subparag. 16 of the Copyright Act, since most of the bar codes were created on the basis of the Plaintiff’s creative expression except that part of the bar code was made public. However, as seen earlier, the Defendants copied and transmitted to others, without the Plaintiff’s copyright owner’s permission, and partly modified and modified the Plaintiff’s name, including the Plaintiff’s name, and the files infringed on the Plaintiff’s right of reproduction, distribution, right of attribution, right of attribution, and right of production of derivative works (as a whole, the files recorded in the separate sheet No. 11 may be recognized as facts exceeding 90% when compared with the Plaintiff’s original file (as such, it is sufficiently confirmed that the files recorded in the separate sheet No. 3 are substantially similar to the Plaintiff’s original file).

B) Determination on prohibition and prevention claims

As seen earlier, the Defendants infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright. As such, pursuant to Article 123(1) of the Copyright Act, the Defendants shall not reproduce, distribute, or use the instant program files, and shall not indicate the Defendants’ names on the said files.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for the disposal of documents, computer programs, computer files, photographs, and the half-finished products and the production facilities used for their production, which are kept or displayed in the "other places" among lawsuits against the defendants, shall be dismissed, respectively, as it is unlawful. Since the plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, they shall be accepted, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as per Disposition. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The name of the presiding judge;

Judges Kang Jin-hun

Judges Kim Dong-hee

1) Of the files listed in the attached list 3, the number of files is 62 to 66, 70, 71.

2） 상업직 가치를 가지는 프로그램의 경우 그 소스코드의 양이 배우 방대하고 복잡하기 때문에 프로그래밍 언어에 있어서도 소 스코드 작성에 있어 오류를 줄이고 효율성을 기할 수 있는 여러 가지 기법이 요구된다. 이 사건에 사용된 C/C++에서도 이러 한 점을 고려하여 반복해서 자주 사용되는 함수（특정한 기능을 하기 위해 필요한 명링어들을 모아 놓은 단위）는 이미 프로그 래밍 언어 자체에서 제공하거나, 프로그래머가 기존에 만들어 놓은 함수（이러한 함수의 모임을 라이브러리라고 하고. 확장자 가 lib인 파일이 타이브러리 파일이다）나 다른 소스코드의 함수를 사용할 수 있는 기능을 제공하고（프로그래머는 위 함수가 포함된 확장자가 h인 파일, 즉 헤더 파일을 불러오는 명령어틀 소스코드에 적은 후 위 함수를 사용할 수 있다）, 효율적인 프 로그래밍과 사후 보완（디버깅）을 위해 소스코드를 여러 개의 파일에 나누어 작성하되, 위 파일끼리는 헤더 파일을 불러오는 방식을 통하여 선체가 하나의 소스코드로 기능할 수 있도록 하고 있다. 이 사건 프로그램 파일 역시 형태는 300여 개의 파일 로 분리되어 있으나, 그 실질은 TMV 장비 제어 프로그램이라는 단일한 프로그램으로 각 소스코드 파일（확장자가 cpp인 파 일）은 헤더파일에 의하여 연결되어 서로 다른 소스코드 파일을 참조하여 연동하여 작동하도록 되어 있다. 갑 제17호증에는 이러한 상호 연관관계가 다이어그램의 형식으로 나타나 있다. 한핀 이 사건 프로그램 파일에는 앞서 설명한 확장자가 cpp, h, lib인 파일 외에도 확장자가 dll인 파일이 있는데, 이는 실행파일의 일부 기능이 나뉘어 저장된 파일로 메모리의 효율적 사 용을 위해 윈도우 운영체계에서 지원하는 형식의 파일이다. 참고로 C/C++ 프로그램에서 여러 개의 소스코드가 단일한 프로 그램인지 판단하는 기준은 각 소스코드 파일 전체를 통틀어 ’main（）' 함수가 하나인지 살펴보면 된다.

3) In the case of a minging language, converting the bar code written in C/C+++C) into a language that can be understood by machinery, such as mechanical Dun computer;

The file from the conversion results is the form of an execution file (general expansion is ex officio).

4) In the instant case, M drafted the file so that M can be used for the Plaintiff’s radar equipment.

5) It may provide information on specific hardware or specific technical capabilities, or suggest their information.

6) In the so-called “burier engineering field”, the method of reverse tracking from the executing file to analyze the source code has been developed.

7) It is reasonable to seek the destruction of products and the removal of manufacturing facilities, such as Article 10(2) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

8) Even if the amount of profit per unit cannot be directly acknowledged as the data submitted by the Plaintiff, the evidence of Article 14-2(5) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act

It can be considered as ‘the result of death'.