1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a company that operates a crew and an airport-based private teaching institute (hereinafter referred to as “instant private teaching institute”) in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and five floors.

From November 1, 2010, the Defendant entered into the instant annual salary contract with the Plaintiff on June 1, 2012 (hereinafter “instant annual salary contract”). In the instant annual salary contract, the Defendant determined that “where the Defendant concludes the instant annual salary contract, he/she shall have the right to operate the Plaintiff at the time of retirement even if he/she created and operated the carpets, blobs, etc. related to the Plaintiff, even if he/she would have been operating the instant annual salary,” and “the Defendant shall have the right to all the results produced by the Plaintiff under the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s contract.”

Around June 2015, the Defendant retired from the instant private teaching institute.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, if the defendant withdraws from the court, notwithstanding the transfer of the right to operate the NAV (hereinafter "the instant KaP") as stipulated in the annual salary contract of this case to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to transfer the instant KaP to the plaintiff and compensate for the damage.

Judgment

The annual salary contract of this case includes provisions on the transfer of the right to operate the carpets and tables related to the plaintiff at the time of the defendant's retirement. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8 through 10, and 16 through 18, the employees of the private teaching institute of this case write down comments on the instant carpets, and the facts that the instant carpets and the plaintiff were promoted together, each of the members managed by the private teaching institute of this case is recognized.

However, it can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of each description of evidence of Nos. 2 through 15, 19, 26, and 27 and the whole purport of the pleadings as follows: