In a case where: (a) Company A (a) and the head of the sales division of Company B (a company of the same kind) have retired from office as Company B (a company of the same kind); (b) 45 business places among the customers of Company A (a company of the same kind); (c) have terminated transactions with Company A; (d) Company B had caused business losses by taking away Company A’s customers by using information such as information on the list of business partners, which are trade secrets of Company A; and (d) Company B and Company B claimed compensation for damages against Company B, the case holding that the above information cannot be deemed as “trade secret” as provided

The case holding that in case where Gap company Gap company's business partner Eul and Eul company Byung company's business partner Byung transferred their jobs to the limited partnership company which is the same kind of company Gap company, and 45 business partners among Gap company's business partners terminate their transactions with Gap company and transaction defect, Eul company's business losses were caused by deducting Gap company's business partner's transaction partner by using information such as the list of transaction partners, margin rate and margin amount, discount amount, and the provision of personal goods, and claimed damages against Eul and Eul company, the case held that the above information cannot be "trade secret" as provided for in subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, considering all the circumstances such as the fact that Gap company's business partner's business partner shared information such as the details of the transaction, the details of the goods provided, and discount amount, etc.

Article 2 subparag. 2 and 3 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act and Article 11 of the same Act

Doing Power Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Yong-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Limited Partnership Company and two others (Law Firm Won, Attorneys Kim Ho-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

January 13, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 10 million won with 5% interest per annum from August 29, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings, either the parties to a dispute or some of the testimonys of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3.

A. Status of the parties

(1) The Plaintiff Company is a corporation that sells alcoholic beverages and beverages.

(2) On June 20, 2005, Defendant 2 entered the Plaintiff Company with business affairs, and was engaged in business customer management, business personnel in charge, education, and supervision, and retired on July 3, 2014.

(3) On August 1, 2002, Defendant 3 entered the Plaintiff Company and engaged in the sales and supply of alcoholic beverages as the head of the sales division, and the collection of sales bonds, etc., and retired from the Plaintiff on July 15, 2014.

(4) Defendant 2 entered the Defendant Company on July 14, 2014, and was appointed as the general partner and joint representative members of the Defendant Company, and Defendant 3 also joined the Defendant Company around that time.

B. The Plaintiff Company is composed of a representative, a business director, a four business director, and an employee who manages computer management programs.

C. After Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 retired from office as the Defendant company, 45 business places among the business places of the Plaintiff company from July 26, 2014 to August 29, 2014, concluded transactions with the Plaintiff company and traded with the Defendant company.

D. Meanwhile, among the transaction partners who traded with the Plaintiff Company and engaged in the transaction with the Defendant Company, there is also a transaction partner who makes another transaction with the Plaintiff Company.

E. The Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company run the business by lending air conditioners, etc. free of charge in transactions with customers such as restaurants. In the case of Chuncheon, all liquor wholesalers including the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company provide air conditioners to both the Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company, and collect air conditioners when their transactions with the clients are terminated.

F. The Plaintiff Company and the Defendant Company are running a business by offering goods such as discount of the supply price of alcoholic beverages, gift owners, etc., in addition to the manner of providing cold storage to customers.

2. Determination as to the claim of the Plaintiff Company

A. The assertion

(1) Plaintiff Company

The four chiefs of the plaintiff company's four chiefs of business may access and manage only information on the business partners and the supply volume, sales claims, etc. managed respectively by their own exclusive terminals.

Only the representative members, business affairs, and employees who enter computer management programs (No. 1,000 company) of the Plaintiff company can access information on the margin, the amount of dust, the amount of discount, etc., and the head of the business division has no right to access information other than the business partners managed by himself/herself, and the director of the business division cannot know whether he/she provided the goods, the amount of discount, and the

The details of private goods, such as the list of customers of the Plaintiff Company, the margin and the amount of mast, the discounted amount, the cold storage, and the donor, are trade secrets of the Plaintiff Company, which are not generally known, and even though they did not request each member of the business, the director of the business division is only able to peruse only the information on the business partner he/she manages, and does not have access to the other business parties.

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 have a duty to keep trade secrets confidential under a contractual relationship. Defendant 2 owned trade secrets as business affairs, and Defendant 3 shared information, such as transaction partners, supply volume, sales claims, etc., but the aforementioned Defendants shared trade secrets by sharing their own information through sharing their roles at the time of retirement.

Defendant Company’s trade secret deduction between Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, thereby infringing the Plaintiff Company’s trade secret, and committed an act of promising to trade the Plaintiff Company’s business partner at a competitive price than the Plaintiff Company from July 26, 2014 to August 29, 2014, thereby reducing 45 business customers of the Plaintiff Company by using the Plaintiff Company’s trade secret, thereby causing business loss equivalent to KRW 407,863,868. The Defendants jointly are liable to pay KRW 100,000,000 and delay damages.

(2) The defendants' assertion

The alcoholic beverage wholesalers located in Chuncheon are 10 alcoholic beverage wholesalers, with a similar alcoholic beverage supply standard, and there are many business partners such as restaurants that can be said to be consumers, so they are aware of what kind of alcoholic beverage wholesalers trade with any alcoholic beverage wholesalers. In particular, they provide a cooling machine to a business establishment free of charge, and all of them are provided through the same ricle ricle ricle ricle ricle ricle ricle ricle.

Under these circumstances, the contract with the customer is mainly operated by the human network such as friendship, so it is difficult to exist by each liquor wholesaler, and the transaction terms can be identified if it is confirmed by the person related to the customer.

The Plaintiff Company shares information such as the terms and conditions of transaction with the customer and the terms and conditions of transaction with the new customer while running the Plaintiff Company every day while running its business. Since the customer who intends to enter into a contract discloses the terms and conditions of transaction provided by another alcoholic beverage wholesaler at the contact stage, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not confidential or confidential, nor is it economically useful.

There is no infringement against Defendant 2 and Defendant 3.

B. Determination

The term “trade secret” under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act refers to any production method, sale method, and other technical or managerial information useful for business activities, which is not known to the general public by considerable effort. Here, the term “patently not known” refers to any information that is not obtained from many and unspecified persons because it is not known to the general public, such as by means of a publication, etc., and “the owner of information has an independent economic value” means that the owner of information can benefit from competition, or requires considerable expenses or effort for the acquisition or development of information. “Maintenance of secret by considerable effort” refers to information that is not known to the public and has an independent economic value. It refers to information that is not widely known by the owner of information to the public and has an independent economic value to the public, and that information is not widely known to the public and has been maintained and managed by the industry (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 208Do28128, Aug. 28, 2014).

In this case, it is not sufficient to recognize the assertion of the Plaintiff Company in light of the following circumstances solely based on the descriptions and images of the health belt, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including paper numbers) and the witness testimony of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3. There is no other evidence to acknowledge

오히려 을 제1 내지 6호증(가지번호 포함)의 각 기재 및 영상과 증인 소외 1, 소외 2, 소외 3의 각 일부 증언을 종합하면, ① 원고 회사의 마진율, 마진액, 할인액을 관리하는 컴퓨터 관리프로그램(수호천사)은 원고 회사의 대표자, 여직원이 관리하고 있으나, 영업과장들이 물어보는 경우 답변을 해 주고 있는 사실(원고 회사의 영업상무 소외 1의 증언), ② 원고 회사의 컴퓨터 관리프로그램(수호천사)에서 영업과장이 사용하는 단말기에 다운로드되는 항목은 거래처에 관한 사항, 판매수량, 입금 또는 외상 입력, 상품별 매출현황, 매출처별 매출현황 등인 사실, ③ 주류도매업체와 거래하는 거래처 매장에 설치된 냉장고 등의 사은품을 확인하면, 그 거래처가 어느 주류도매업체와 거래하는지를 쉽게 확인할 수 있는 사실, ④ 영업방식은 영업담당 직원들이 거래처와 직접 접촉하여 거래조건을 물어보거나 확인한 후 교섭하면서 거래조건을 협상하는 방식으로 이루어지고, 거래처와 접촉하면 거래조건을 확인할 수 있는 사실, ⑤ 인맥과 학연 등을 통한 영업이 주로 이루어지는 사실, ⑥ 원고 회사의 경우 매일 오전 영업담당 상무가 영업담당 직원들로부터 거래처의 새로운 요구, 신규 거래처 확보 등에 관한 영업회의를 주관하는 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 여기에다가 위 인정 사실 및 거시 증거를 종합하여 인정할 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고 회사는 영업상무만이 신규 거래처의 업주와 요구조건을 상담한 후, 원고 회사의 대표자와 함께 거래조건을 결정하고, 영업담당자에게는 냉장고와 기증주 등의 사은품 제공내역, 할인규모, 지원금 및 대출금 지원 여부는 비밀로 한다고 주장하나, 그 주장은 영업상무 이외의 영업담당 직원인 영업과장을 두는 이유를 설명하기 어렵고, 마진내역과 사은품 제공내역은 담당자도 알 수 없게 되어 거래처와 거래 시 즉각적인 대응을 할 수도 없으며, 거래처와의 거래내역을 원고 회사의 대표자나 영업상무만이 알고 대응하면서 영업을 한다는 것은 현실적으로 불가능한 것으로 보이며, 거래처와 지속적으로 거래하기 위해서는 영업사원들이 마진내역, 사은품 제공내역 등을 어느 정도 공유하는 것으로 충분히 볼 수 있는 점, ② 원고 회사는 영업상무가 매일 오전 영업회의를 주관하는바, 그 회의에선 거래처의 거래조건, 신규 거래처 확보를 위한 거래조건 등에 관한 논의를 하는 것으로 보이므로(대표자와 영업상무가 비밀리에 거래조건을 결정한다는 원고 회사의 주장은 쉽게 믿기 어렵다), 할인금 등의 거래조건 등의 정보를 대략적이라도 공유하고 있는 것으로 충분히 볼 수 있는 점(원고 회사의 영업상무 소외 1도 영업과장들도 영업회의 시 거래조건에 관한 논의를 하는 경우가 간혹 있고, 이는 영업과장들이 신규 거래처를 개척하면 수당을 받을 수 있기 때문이며, 거래처와 접촉하면 거래조건을 확인할 수 있다고 증언하고 있기도 하다), ③ 원고 회사의 마진율, 마진액, 할인액을 관리하는 컴퓨터 관리프로그램(수호천사)은 원고 회사의 대표자, 여직원이 관리하고 있으나, 영업과장들이 물어보는 경우 답변을 해 주고 있는 점에 비추어, 영업 담당직원들도 거래처에 대한 정보는 공유하고 있는 것으로 충분히 볼 수 있는 점, ④ 원고의 위 ‘①항’의 주장 자체에 의하더라도 영업담당 직원에게 신규 거래처를 고지하는 점, ⑤ 업소를 방문하여 주류도매업체에서 제공하는 냉장고를 확인하면 그 업소와 거래하는 주류도매업체를 바로 파악할 수 있는 점에 비추어 보면 주류도매업체는 업소가 거래하는 주류도매업체를 별다른 노력을 하지 않고도 거래처 명단을 확보할 수 있는 것으로 보이는 점, ⑥ 주류도매업체가 주류 생산회사로부터 공급받는 가격은 업계에서는 통상적으로 이미 공지되어 있다고 보아야 할 것이고, 그러한 공급가격에서 비용 등을 제외하고 영업을 지속할 수 있는 할인 가능 범위는 주류도매업계에서는 쉽게 추정할 수 있다고 볼 수 있는 점에 비추어 보면 정확한 할인금을 즉시 파악할 수 없다 하더라도, 대략적인 할인 범위 및 할인 폭은 별다른 노력을 하지 않고도 추측할 수 있을 것으로 보이고, 정확한 할인금은 업소와 직접 대면을 하는 영업방식으로 확보할 수 있는 것으로 보이는 점, ⑦ 주류도매업은 그 특성상 영업직원들이 직접 거래업체와 접촉하는 방식으로 거래처를 관리하고, 원고 회사는 영업담당 직원별로 거래처 목록을 전산화하여 관리하면서 신규 거래처를 개척하는 경우 수당을 지급하였으므로, 영업담당 직원들도 자신이 관리하는 거래처 정보를 단말기를 통하여 조회할 수 있는 것으로 보이고, 비록 마진율을 직접 조회할 수 없다 하더라도 판매가격이 조회되므로, 할인금, 할인율을 통하여 마진율을 충분히 추정할 수 있는 것으로 보이며, 거래처에 대한 상호, 연락처, 소재지, 매출현황 등은 이미 공지되었거나 다른 경쟁업체가 상당한 비용이나 노력을 들이지 않고도 쉽게 얻을 수 있는 정보인 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고 주장의 정보가 자료의 취득이나 개발을 위해 상당한 시간, 노력 및 비용을 들인 것으로 보기 어려운 점, ⑧ 앞서 본 사정에 비추어 할인율, 마진율 등의 정보는 영업사원들을 통한 통상적인 임금의 지급이나 교제비 내지 업무추진비 등의 경비 이외에 그 취득을 위하여 별도로 상당한 비용을 지출한 것으로 보기 어려워, 정보취득을 위한 상당한 노력이나 비용이 필요하다고 보기도 어려운 점, ⑨ 원고 회사가 컴퓨터 관리프로그램에 비밀유지에 필요한 별다른 보안장치나 보안관리규정을 마련하였다고 볼 흔적도 찾아볼 수 없는 점, ⑩ 영업담당 직원들의 단말기를 통한 반출 등에 관한 통제장치가 마련되어 있었던 흔적을 찾아볼 수 없는 점, ⑪ 피고 2, 피고 3을 포함한 직원들에 대하여 영업비밀을 공개하거나 누설하지 않겠다는 내용의 서약서를 징구하였다는 흔적을 찾아볼 수도 없는 점, ⑫ 원고 회사가 피고 2, 피고 3이 원고 주장의 정보를 부정한 수단으로 취득하고 사용하였다는 구체적인 행위 태양도 특정하지 못하고 있는 점 등을 종합하면, 원고 주장의 정보는 영업비밀로서 구비하여야 하는 비공지성, 독립된 경제적 가치, 비밀관리성을 구비하지 못하여 영업비밀이라 할 수 없다. 따라서 원고 회사 주장의 정보가 영업비밀임을 전제로 하는 원고 회사의 주장은 그 수액에 관하여 더 나아가 살필 것 없이 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff company's claim against the defendants of the plaintiff company is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho So-young