The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended by this court are all dismissed.

costs of lawsuit after an appeal are filed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff Company is an enterprise that engages in the business of supplying experimental equipment and chemical medicine, and the Defendant served as an intra-company director from February 2, 2002 to March 22, 2016.

B. Around August 27, 2008, the Defendant registered a business operator with respect to the wholesale and retail of scientific equipment, low-carbon, chemical medicine, etc. in its trade name, and operated it.

C. On the other hand, at the time of the Defendant’s registration as above, D was the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, and E was the internal director of the Plaintiff Company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 7 and 8 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1) since January 24, 2002 through March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff was in the position of the director of the Plaintiff Company, and the Defendant operated the Plaintiff Company’s trade name “C” on its own account without approval of the board of directors, despite the existence of the duty to prohibit competition pursuant to Article 397(1) of the Commercial Act, and sold goods belonging to the Plaintiff Company’s limited liability company to F and others. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for compensating for damages suffered by the Plaintiff Company pursuant to Article 399(1) of the Commercial Act. The damages suffered by the Plaintiff Company were from August 27, 2008 when the Defendant commenced its operation to March 22, 2016 when the Defendant retired from the position of director of the Plaintiff Company from the Plaintiff Company to March 22, 2016. The representative director of the Plaintiff Company consented not only to the Plaintiff Company’s operation D and the Defendant’s management director of the Plaintiff Company, but also to C.

In addition, since the goods and services sold by the Defendant are not belonging to the Plaintiff Company or the same kind of business, even if the Defendant sold the goods and services to the FF companies, the damage to the Plaintiff Company.