(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.15 2014가합28102

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.15 2014가합28102

손해배상(기)

Text

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

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 21, 2012, the Plaintiff Company is a company that is engaged in advertising agency business, and the Defendant joined the Plaintiff Company that is engaged in Internet advertising agency business.

The defendant prepared a written oath at the time of entry and the main contents thereof are as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant vow.” A written pledge, upon joining JTSedia (the plaintiff company of this case), does not undertake to comply with the following rules:

3. A company's act of collecting or keeping company's information (business customer DB, goods, and computer) for an individual's interest without the company's approval is regarded as an outflow of secret and regardless of the reasons therefor. 4. A company's act of collecting or keeping the company's information for an individual's interest, despite the company's intention or negligence, provides that the company shall be held liable for civil or criminal liability when the company suffers loss to the company at the time of the company's retirement. 5. After the company's retirement, it pledges that after the company's retirement, the company shall be held liable for civil or criminal liability.

The Defendant, while working as a business employee at the Plaintiff Company, retired the Plaintiff Company on April 16, 2013, and run the Internet advertising agency business in the name of “B” from the end of May 2013.

C. After the Defendant’s resignation, Nonparty C, D, E, F, and G retired from the Plaintiff Company among the business employees of the Plaintiff Company, and among them, E, F, and G were employed in B.

(hereinafter referred to as “E, etc.” . . The ground for recognition . . . The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Claim for damages arising from breach of the duty of confidentiality and the duty of prohibition of competition under the agreement.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.08.23 2018노681

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2018.05.09 2016고단1367

-서울고등법원 2014.12.26 2014나1555

-서울동부지방법원 2020.06.26 2018가단142279

-서울고등법원 2019.04.19 2018나10540