The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, "trade secret" under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act (hereinafter "the Unfair Competition Prevention Act") means the production method, sale method, and other technical and managerial information useful for business activities, which are not known publicly, and have independent economic value.

The phrase “not known to the public” refers to a situation in which it is recognizable that the information is objectively maintained and managed as confidential, such as where the information is obtained from a person who has access to the information or a person who has access to the information, because it is not known to an unspecified number of people, such as a publication, etc., and where “the person who has an independent economic value” means that the person who has access to the information can benefit from competition to the competitor or that a considerable cost or effort is needed for the acquisition or development of the information through the use of the information, and where “the information is kept confidential by considerable effort” means a situation in which it is recognizable that the information is objectively maintained and managed as confidential, such as: (a) a person who has access to the information, or a person who has access to the information, is subject to the duty of confidentiality, etc.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the court below’s decision is just in holding that the design of plos and ploss supplied by the victim R Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd.”) to S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim Co., Ltd”) around January 2005 constitutes trade secrets of the victim company, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below violated logical and empirical rules.