logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.22 2015가합546744
영업금지 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a business entity that provides membership-based services with the trade name of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Officetel 320 from 2013 to H, such as a written training course and a sports organization that is able to take notes.

Defendant C is a person who had worked in H from June 2013 to February 2015; Defendant D from September 2014 to February 2015; Defendant E from March 2014 to February 2015; Defendant F was a person who had worked in H from March 2014 to March 2015; and Defendant B was a member of H.

around February 2015, Defendant B started the instant Gtel 406 and 429 with the trade name “I” and “I,” and Defendant C, D, E, and F were retired from H on March 2015, and served in the first operated by Defendant B until now.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole argument by the plaintiff as to the purport of the whole argument, Defendant C, D, E, and F (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant C, etc.") took unfair profits by using H's customer information, promotion method, contents and method of lectures, operational know-how, and arsen, etc. without the plaintiff's consent, without the plaintiff's consent, and Defendant B used them for business despite being aware that the defendant C, etc. acquired the plaintiff's trade secret by unlawful means.

This constitutes a trade secret infringement and constitutes a civil tort due to an occupational breach of trust. As such, Defendant B’s written course and service business should be prohibited, and the Defendants jointly and severally compensate for KRW 101,000,000, which is a part of the business losses and mental damages suffered by the Plaintiff.

Even if the defendants' act does not constitute a trade secret infringement, the outcome made by the "other's considerable investment or effort" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (j) of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Unfair Competition Prevention Act") is a fair trade practice or competition order.

arrow