1. Defendant C and D:

(a) use each information listed in the Appendix 1, 2, or provide it to persons other than the plaintiff;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that produces and sells metal structures, such as CCTV props.

Defendant B is a person who runs the sales business, etc. under the trade name of “E”.

Defendant C was enrolled in E on July 2006 and resigned from E on September 1, 2016, and was enrolled in the Plaintiff on October 1, 2016 and retired from the Plaintiff on April 30, 2018, and thereafter was enrolled in E on May 2, 2018, and Defendant D was enrolled in E on May 2, 2012, and was transferred to the Plaintiff on May 2, 2013 while he was transferred to the Plaintiff on June 31, 2018.

B. On September 22, 2020, Defendant C and D were sentenced to one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution (hereinafter “relevant criminal case”) due to the crime of violation of the Act on the Prevention of Unfair Competition and the Protection of Trade Secrets (such as divulgence of trade secrets) in the branch court of the Busan District Court, and the appeal court is still in progress.

Criminal facts related to the instant case among related criminal cases are as follows:

Criminal facts

1. Defendant C and D’s occupational breach of trust shall copy and deduct electronic information files, such as design drawings, etc. necessary for the production of CCTV metal structures, which are major business assets of the Plaintiff’s trade secrets, to USB;

On the other hand, after joining E, the CCTV structure was produced by using it, and the defendant C conspired to conduct business activities and sell it against the plaintiff and the trading company.

around June 7, 2018, Defendant D copied and stored 29,720 files of the Plaintiff’s electronic records, such as each information listed in the [Attachment 1] List (hereinafter “Information 1”) at the Plaintiff’s office, including the “F” file files, and retired and retained the Plaintiff.

As a result, the above Defendants conspired to acquire the market price in violation of the occupational duty that should not be taken out for the personal interest of the Plaintiff’s major business assets, and thereby acquire the same amount of property equivalent to the Plaintiff.