1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. From September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff operates a private teaching institute that provides education on game planning, programming, traffic, etc. under the trade name “F” on the eightth floor of Busan Jin-gu, Busan.

(hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s private teaching institute”). (b)

Plaintiff

Defendant D, the president of a private teaching institute, bears the duty of prohibiting concurrent operation, and is obliged to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the failure or gross negligence to inflict damages on the Plaintiff, or illegally leaked the business information, development data, and confidential information of the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute.

Plaintiff

Defendant B, an instructor of a driving school, owns and operates a private teaching institute of the same or similar type of business within one year after the termination of the contract with the Plaintiff, bears the duty of prohibiting competition that prohibits the Plaintiff’s students from mediating them to an external institution, etc., and where the Plaintiff violates this duty, he/she is liable to compensate the Plaintiff’s damages incurred thereby.

C. However, in collusion with Defendant A and Defendant D’s wife C, who were the students of the Plaintiff’s driving school, they continued to work at the Plaintiff’s driving school, and they established Defendant A as the representative director of the Plaintiff’s driving school (hereinafter “instant driving school”). Defendant D and B operated the instant driving school without permission by using trade secrets of the Plaintiff’s driving school, such as the lecture sperpers for the Plaintiff’s driving school, lecture students information, scenarios, marketing manuals, website materials, etc. on the building like the Plaintiff’s driving school, and obstructed the Plaintiff’s driving of the instant driving school in a very malicious and planned manner by having the students of the Plaintiff’s driving school retire from the Plaintiff’s driving school and register them at the instant driving school due to refund of tuition fees.

The above acts of the defendants constitute not only the violation of the good faith principle or contract but also tort. Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered losses from refunding the amount of KRW 42,901,648 to the students of the plaintiff's driving school. Thus, the defendants jointly do so to the plaintiff.