1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants added by this court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the judgment of the first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s addition of “2. Additional Claim and Judgment” as to the claims added by this court, and thus, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as it is (see, e.g., the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, even if the Plaintiff’s additional evidence submitted by the court of first instance which was lawfully adopted and investigated by the court of first instance, is just in recognizing the facts of the first instance and the judgment, and there is no error as alleged by the Plaintiff

A. The Plaintiff’s additional claim - The Plaintiff’s trade secrets alleged by the Plaintiff under Article 2 subparag. 1 (k) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act constitute “performance, etc.” under Article 2 subparag. 1 (k) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, which was created with the Plaintiff’s considerable investment and effort.

Accordingly, the act of Defendant C and D, while working in the Plaintiff Company, creating a so-called mixing with E with the knowledge that it was developed at the Plaintiff’s request by the Plaintiff, and requesting E to provide such mixing with E, constitutes an act of unfair competition under Article 2 subparag. 1 (k) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks to prohibit the use of trade secrets listed in the separate sheet pursuant to Article 4 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, and at the same time seek damages pursuant to Article 5 of the same Act.

B. Determination 1) Article 2 Subparag. 1(j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act (amended by Act No. 11963, Jul. 30, 2013) added “any other act infringing on other person’s economic interest by using the results, etc. created by other person’s considerable investment or effort for one’s own business without permission in a manner contrary to fair commercial practices or competition order” to be one of the unfair competition acts, reflecting the purport of Supreme Court Order 2008Ma1541, Aug. 25, 2010.

Act, April 1, 2018