1. All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows: (a) it is clear that it is a clerical error in the judgment of the court of first instance or it is necessary to clarify the meaning thereof.

(b) used in any manner described in subsection (b) below.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the assertion that the Defendants specifically emphasized as the grounds for appeal is added to Paragraph 2. As such, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "(c) 4.2 to 4.0 (c)" part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was written, shall be as follows: (c) Defendant A provided to Defendant B without converting the customer information necessary for the FDS development work, and the employees of Defendant B used the relevant customer information to work in a way that he/she shares storage pools after storing it in the computer for business purposes."

A) While Defendant A E Center’s performance of FDS development work, C became aware of the fact that it is possible to store files linking USB meta with the computers it uses. (b) around February 2013, C copied customer information stored in the co-owned franchise at Defendant A E Center to its own computer for its own business without the installation of a security program; and (c) copied Defendant A’s own USB meta (hereinafter “instant card customer information”). C copied the disclosed information to the computers used at its own house, and copied it to the external disc on April 2013, 2013, under the sentence of Article 75B of the first instance judgment.