본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.20 2018가단5184770

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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


1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a company established on March 2005 for the purpose of carrying on the OCS business, which lends coffee machinery to the company or workplace office and receives a fixed monthly rent, and regularly distributes coffee to be used in the above machinery.

B. On April 1, 2006, the Defendant entered the Republic of Korea on April 1, 2006, prepared and submitted to the Plaintiff a written oath (hereinafter “instant pledge”) with the following contents as of March 30, 206:

I, as from April 1, 2006, take an oath of the following matters:

-n -

3. Where a person retires from office due to circumstances, he/she shall return all the materials related to the company's secrets held during his/her service until his/her retirement, and for two years, regardless of the reasons after his/her retirement, he/she will not provide another person with information on his/her customers or will not replace his/her business activities with another person or with another person with information on his/her customers by doing business activities, regardless of the reasons therefor, with the same business area (including neighboring cities) and the same area in the Dong (including neighboring cities) located in the business area (including neighboring cities) and its adjacent areas.

After that, the Defendant retired from the Plaintiff on February 2008, but re-entered on May 1, 2010, and took charge of securing and managing the Plaintiff’s customers by January 31, 2018.

Article 6 of the Rules of Employment regulating labor relations between the plaintiff and the defendant provides that "An employee shall not disclose any confidential information and disadvantage in the course of performing his/her duties, and shall not engage in the same kind of other employees for two years after his/her retirement."

After the Defendant retired the Plaintiff, the Defendant opened “C”, which is a coffee retail and distributor similar to the Plaintiff, in its own name, and thereafter, approximately 20 of the customers working and managed for the Plaintiff, changed to the said “C”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 12, and Eul evidence No. 12.