1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the counterclaim claim, since only the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed both the plaintiff's principal claim and the defendant's counterclaim claim.

On the other hand, in the first instance court, the defendant filed a claim for damages on the grounds of ① violation of the duty not to engage in competitive business, ② violation of the duty not to use the business opportunity of the company, ③ violation of the duty not to use the business opportunity, ③ violation of the duty not to use the fiduciary duty and the duty not to perform the fiduciary duty,

Basic Facts

The defendant entered into a domestic sales agency contract with a Japanese company on October 6, 1980, and entered into a domestic sales agency contract with the Korean company, and imported cras and parts from the C company and sold them to the domestic customer who ordered it, or maintained crascties sold as above.

On the other hand, the purpose business registered by the defendant as of the closing date of the argument in this case is the issuance of a letter of commitment for sale of goods, the sale and sale of general goods, the sale and consignment sales business, the manufacture and sale of parts of communications electronic materials, the installation and sale business of telecommunications electronic equipment, the trade business (construction equipment, transportation equipment, and industrial equipment), the heavy equipment and vehicle maintenance business, the real estate leasing business, the automobile import business, and any business incidental to the above purpose business.

On October 20, 1987, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Company at the same time as the establishment of the Defendant Company, but retired from the Defendant Company after receiving retirement pay on October 20, 1987, and thereafter, the Plaintiff served as a registered director of the Defendant Company and resigned on April 30,

At the time of the resignation of the plaintiff, the class of the plaintiff in the defendant company was the vice-chairperson, and the class of the plaintiff in the defendant company was higher than that of the plaintiff.

In accordance with the sequences of the Plaintiff, D, and F, four (hereinafter individually, referred to as “cicks”) are individually identified as “cicks 1 to 4”, and generally referred to as “cicks”, each of which is registered as listed below and used for the said D and F.