beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the wholesale, retail and service business of radio communication.
B. The Defendant is an employee of the Plaintiff from May 6, 2013 to September 27, 2016.
C. At the time of retirement, the Defendant leaked approximately KRW 2,00 information on the Plaintiff’s customer in the sales and customer management program of C.
After the death of the defendant, around December 2016, the defendant entered the plaintiff's store and 50 meters away from the plaintiff's store.
E. After entry, the Defendant sent advertising letters using the Plaintiff’s customer information that was leaked in advance on January 13, 2017 and January 30 of the same month.
F. C used by the Plaintiff for the management of customer information is a program that has managed a ID, password, etc. while bearing management expenses.
G. The Plaintiff suffered from serious decrease in sales due to the outflow of customer information by the Defendant.
H. Since the Defendant suffered damages due to the above illegal acts, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages (customer 2,000, 30,000 won per customer), and the customer information leaked should be discarded.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant, while serving as the Plaintiff’s employee, copied approximately KRW 2,00 customer information from C, the Plaintiff’s customer management program, to USB meta, and the Defendant was indicted and tried for violating the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (Leakage of business secrets, etc.) in Suwon District Court Decision 2017Ra1941. The facts charged in the instant case are those who were in charge of mobile phone sales and customer management, etc. from May 1, 2013 to September 27, 2016 at the mobile phone sales store located in the Bupyeong-gu F building operated by the Plaintiff Company E, the representative director of which, “the Defendant”, work for the Defendant, from May 1, 2013 to September 27, 2016.
The defendant intended to acquire and operate the above store, but it was rejected by the representative director E.