1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of planning and production of Internet advertising, Internet advertising agency, and information and communications service using computers and communications equipment. The Defendant is employed in the Plaintiff Company on January 5, 2010 and works as the Business Search and Marketing Department B and Strategy Team C.

On June 30, 2014, he retired from office.

B. After the Defendant retired from the Plaintiff Company, on July 1, 2014, the Defendant opened an individual workplace with the trade name “D,” and retired from office as an employee of LAB.

C. At the time of being employed by the Plaintiff Company, the Defendant ordered the advertiser to advertise with the Plaintiff Company’s business ID, and then placed the advertisement on the Internet media, including NAV and the following.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute and purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff asserts that "the defendant did not divulge the personal information destruction declaration of No. 1, or the third party's possession information managed by the company or the company according to the evidence No. 3, the security pledge of No. 2, etc., and the rules of employment No. 2, and even though he/she had a duty not to use such information for purposes other than the company's business, he/she had a duty not to use such information, upon access to the advertiser's I and password, which had been known at the time when the plaintiff company was in office, after accessing the advertiser's Center by using such information as E, F, G, H, and I, and then transferred the advertiser's information to another company, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff company as stated in the purport of the claim, such as the advertising agency fee."

According to the evidence Nos. 7 and 9, etc., it is recognized that the advertiser managed by the plaintiff company was transferred to another company at around July, 2014. However, it is recognized that the defendant transferred the advertiser, etc. to another company by using illegally information, etc. on the advertiser and the testimony of the witness J alone.