The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around October 2012, the Defendant joined the Plaintiff Company and served as the head of the distribution business team of the two teams, and retired from office around December 2018.

B. On December 1, 2017, the Defendant prepared and submitted to the Plaintiff a security angle with the following content (hereinafter “instant security angle”).

- The defendant does not use management information, technical information, sales information, customer information, etc. obtained through the performance of his/her duties for purposes other than his/her duties without the consent of the plaintiff company.

- If the defendant fails to comply with the above matters, 28,625,300 won shall be paid to the plaintiff company in accordance with the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act.

C. On five occasions on December 2018, the Defendant released Nowon-North Korea, where the Plaintiff Company’s trade secrets (the purchase unit price and sales unit price for each item company, transaction information, inventory details, and estimates, etc.) were installed, without permission, to which the ERP program is installed.

On October 7, 2019, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant’s act of withdrawing the Plaintiff’s trade secrets to the competitor company without permission, and the investigative agency rendered a decision on October 7, 2019 on the ground that the Defendant denied the Defendant’s criminal act and there is no obvious evidence to prove the alleged divulgence of trade secrets.

[Ground of recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 4, Eul evidence 12 (including virtual number), Eul evidence 1, Eul's response to the National Health Insurance Corporation's order to submit documents to the National Health Insurance Corporation, the whole purport of the pleadings [the defendant prepared the security memorandum of this case without choice by force of the plaintiff company, so the above security angle of this case is invalid, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted]

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is in accordance with the contents of the security memorandum of this case.