1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,250,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 17, 2018 to July 5, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a E Institute (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”) in Daejeon P&C (Class 7 D), and the Defendant is a person who works as a school instructor at the instant private teaching institute.

B. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff made a contract with the Defendant to pay 25% of the monthly tuition fees as lecture fees for a period of one year from October 28, 2014. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to entrust the Defendant with the lecture of the instant private teaching institute (hereinafter “instant lecture contract”).

C. At the same time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted the “Agreement on Confidentiality and the Prohibition of Competitive Business” (hereinafter the “Agreement on the Prohibition of Competitive Business”), and its main contents are as follows:

(Plaintiff = A, Defendant = E.

D. On June 12, 2017, the Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a written resignation (Evidence A 4) and informed the Plaintiff of his resignation as of July 9, 2017, and even in the written resignation, promised that the personal information, etc. of the students will not be used for a day after retirement.

E. After the Defendant retired from the pertinent private teaching institute, the Defendant provided lectures to 21 students who attended the instant private teaching institute while operating the private teaching institute at the neighboring place ( approximately 130m in the present place while operating the private teaching institute at approximately 570m in direct election).

(Specific Contents are as follows). F G H I JJ K L NA POR TUV WXY Z [The grounds for recognition are the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-4, 12, and 13 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff, which caused the claim, withdrawn the claim for damages due to the violation of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

(1) According to the above basic facts, the defendant violated the prohibition of competitive business agreement of this case and gave a lecture to 21 students of the private teaching institute of this case at a place adjacent to the private teaching institute of this case. Thus, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is liable to pay penalty 105,00.