1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the rejection of the judgment of the court of first instance from No. 9 to No. 10, No. 14, and No. 10, No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following No. 2, and therefore, it is acceptable

2. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the limitation on liability, the following circumstances can be seen: (a) the possibility that the contractual relationship division between the Plaintiff Company and each school may be entirely excluded from the possibility that the Defendants may have occurred due to any other factor, other than the Defendants’ breach of the duty of prohibition on the change of occupation; and (b) the period of the Defendants’ work in the Plaintiff Company may not be deemed to be a very long-term period of up to three years and eight months; and (c) it is reasonable to limit the amount of the Defendants’ compensation for the Plaintiff Company to 60% of the amount of damages as seen earlier. Accordingly, the Defendants jointly liable to compensate for the Plaintiff Company. Accordingly, the Defendants jointly liable to the Plaintiff Company 5,148,00 won (=8,580,000 x 60% x 60% of the amount of the Plaintiff Company’s delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case by the date following the decision in this case, which is deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendants’ performance obligation.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be accepted and dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

The part against the Defendants ordering payment in excess of the above part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which has partially different conclusions, is unfair. Therefore, the Defendants’ appeal is partially accepted, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed. The remainder of the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and thus, the Defendants’ remaining part