In calculating the amount of damages caused by infringement of trade secrets, the case holding that the amount of damages is determined on the basis of the overall purport of the pleading and the result of examination of evidence pursuant to Article 14-2 (5) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act on the ground that it is difficult to apply Article 14-2 (1)

In calculating the amount of damages caused by infringement of trade secrets, the case determining the amount of damages based on the overall purport of the pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence pursuant to Article 14-2 (5) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act on the ground that it is difficult to apply Article 14-2 (1) through (4) of

Article 14-2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Law Firm Shinsung, Attorneys Park Young-ju, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 29, 2006

1. The defendants pay to each plaintiff 50,000,000 won with 50,000 won and 3% interest per annum from October 25, 2005; Defendant 2 shall pay to each plaintiff 5% interest per annum from June 10, 2006 to January 24, 2007; and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

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

3. Three-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiff and the remainder are assessed against the defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants shall pay to each plaintiff 3 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 10, Gap evidence 3-1 through 27, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6-1 through 21, Gap evidence 7-1 through 3, Gap evidence 7-1 through 10, and the whole purport of the pleadings in the testimony of the witness Span-cel.

A. The plaintiff is a company established around August 1997 for the purpose of producing nitrote tapes, which are half-finished goods used as support body for 10/100 of fixed 3/3/197. At the same time producing nitrote tapes, and is composed of glocks producing nitro tape, glocks producing glocks, glocks, glocks (out-of-date glocks), glocks (out-of-date glocks), glocks (out-of-date glocks), and glocks manufactured as glocks in the form of glock 9.0/6/100 of the manufacturing technology of the plaintiff 10/6/10 of the manufacturing technology of the plaintiff 10/6/10 of the manufacturing technology of the defendant 2/10 of the manufacturing technology of the 9/6/100 of the manufacturing technology of the plaintiff 2/20 of the above manufacturing technology of the plaintiff 10/2.

B. The Defendants, while working in the Plaintiff or Nonparty 2 and were dismissed or dismissed, conspired to see that they came to know of the Plaintiff’s trade secrets, such as machinery design drawings, machinery production and operation methods, production unit price, customer list, etc. of the above machinery, and produced nitro tape and sold it to the domestic related enterprises at dumping prices, or imported the above machinery and tools related to the production of glive tape at the Plaintiff’s office on June 2004; Defendant 1, at the Plaintiff’s office, at the price of 300 glives used for the production of glive tape, and at the price of glives and glives stored in the Plaintiff’s computer; Defendant 3, at the price of glives and glives of this case; Defendant 2, at the price of glives and glives of this case; Defendant 3, at the Plaintiff’s glives and glives of glives of this case; and

2. Determination:

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts, the defendants committed an infringement of trade secrets under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (a) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter only referred to as the "Unfair Competition Prevention Act") by acquiring the plaintiff's trade secrets by unlawful means, such as theft, and using the trade secrets so acquired ( not only the core human resources who acquired the plaintiff's trade secrets while working in the plaintiff or non-party 2 company, but also the defendants bear the duty of confidentiality of the plaintiff's trade secrets for a considerable period of time after retirement from the plaintiff or non-party 2 company in accordance with the contractual relationship and the principle of good faith. However, since the plaintiff's trade secrets were used for the purpose of gaining unjust profits or causing damage to the plaintiff, it may be deemed that the defendants committed an infringement of trade secrets under Article 2 subparagraph 3 (d) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Unfair Competition Prevention Act"), the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the infringement of the

B. Scope of liability for damages

(1) Relevant provisions of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (Article 14-2)

(A) Where a person whose business interests are infringed by an act infringing on trade secrets under paragraph (1) of this Article claims compensation under Article 11, if the infringing person transfers an article that caused the infringement on trade secrets, the amount of damages suffered by the person whose business interests are infringed on by the quantity of the article transferred may be calculated as the amount of damages suffered by the person whose business interests are infringed by the profit per unit of the article that could have been sold in the absence of the infringement on trade secrets in question.

(B) Where a person whose business profit is infringed by an infringement of trade secrets under paragraph (2) of this Article claims compensation for damages under Article 11, if the infringing person gets any profit by such infringement, the amount of such profit shall be presumed to be the amount of damage suffered by the person whose business profit is infringed.

(C) A person whose business interests are infringed by an infringement of trade secrets under paragraph (3) of this Article may claim damages under Article 11, the amount equivalent to that which he would normally receive for the use of the trade secrets that were the subject of the infringement, may be claimed as the amount of damages he suffered.

(d) If the amount of damage sustained by the infringement of trade secrets exceeds the amount under the provisions of paragraph (4), such excess amount may also be claimed as compensation for damage. In this case, if the person who infringed the trade interest has no intention or gross negligence, the court may take this into account in calculating the amount of compensation for damage.

(e) The court of Paragraph (5) may recognize a reasonable amount of damages based on the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, if it is extremely difficult to prove the facts necessary to prove the amount of damages due to the nature of the facts in question, even though the damages were incurred in a lawsuit concerning an act of infringement of trade secrets.

(2) Determination:

According to the above evidence, the plaintiff's domestic sales revenue of the above 1.5 billion won or more of the plaintiff's 1. The plaintiff's share was about 75% of the plaintiff's sales revenue of the above 2002, net profit per 1.00 million won, 1.3 billion won or 4.1 million won of net profit per 2003, and 1.0 million won of the plaintiff's sales revenue of the above 3.0 billion won or less of the defendant's sales revenue of the above 1. The plaintiff's 1.5 billion won or less of the defendant's sales revenue of the above 3.0 billion won or less of the defendant's sales revenue of the above 1. The plaintiff's 3.5 billion won or less of the defendant's sales revenue of the above 1. The plaintiff's 3.5 billion won or less of the defendant's sales revenue of the above 3.5 billion won or more of the defendant's sales revenue of the above 3.5 billion won or more of the plaintiff's sales revenue of the 1.

Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8 of evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, and 8, Defendant 1 deposited the Plaintiff as the principal deposit and deposited the amount of KRW 1,000,000 (No. 1688,005, No. 2005, No. 2949, May 6, 2005) as damages for infringement of the trade secrets of this case, and KRW 30,000,000 (No. 2949, Busan District Court No. 2005, No. 2000,000) as to the existence or absence of the above deposited amount from the following day to the date of performance, the Defendants are obligated to serve the Plaintiff at a rate of KRW 50,00,000 (80,000 - 30,000,000) as to each of the following day of this case, to the extent of Defendant 1 and 205,25, respectively.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Man Jin-Jak (Presiding Judge)