論離職後競業禁止契約之獨立性

A Study on the Independence of Post-Employment Non-Competition Clause

蔡瑞麟(Juei-Lin Tsai)

指導教授 ： 王能君

共同指導教授 ： 陳忠五(Chung-Wu Chen)

國立臺灣大學/社會科學院/國家發展研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.01472

摘要

實務上很少有爭議如離職後競業禁止約定般，在最高法院明確表達立場後，尚有為數甚夥的下級審，引用民法第72條、第247-1條等「創造」各種審查標準；即使經最高法院多次發回，仍積極審查其有效性。然法院較積極審查者約僅半數。若案件在訴訟上能有半數以上勝算，從雇主角度以觀，起訴本身對勞工即為干擾、且具事實上威脅性。實務上多數認為，雇主約定離職後競業禁止，無須給付代償、或以在職給付為代償，此將誘使資方無論是否需要，皆先要求員工離職後不競業。
此可謂民事法律爭議中意見最多元、且無統一見解可恃者。本文認為導因於未先釐清離職後競業禁止的法律性質。以民法第72條、第247-1條為有效性判準，判斷對象為何？法條承載之價值如「公序良俗」、「顯失公平」、「免除或減輕預定契約條款之當事人責任」、「加重他方當事人之責任」，若未判斷客體為何、兩造各有何權利及義務，上開法律的價值，如何能判斷？又該如何判定顯失公平？

本文以離職後競業禁止法律性質為核心，解答「離職後競業禁止與勞動契約關係為何？是勞動契約一部分或本身即契約？」前者命名為「勞動契約一部說」，後者稱「獨立契約說」。本文將證明勞動契約一部說不可採，只能採獨立契約說。兩說之糾葛，主要係因實務誤以為離職後競業禁止義務，是勞動契約之附隨義務。本文以探討契約義務是否應有附隨義務之分類為始，試圖說明民法學界未能定義的附隨義務及其內涵，證明離職後競業禁止義務，並非是勞動契約的附隨義務、離職後保守營業秘密義務才是。利用上述論證，說明離職後競業禁止義務內涵及與營業秘密的關係：雇主要求員工離職後禁止競業，是保護營業秘密的前置手段，雖為保護營業秘密而存在，競業禁止卻不等於營業秘密，義務內容也全然不相同。兩者的辯證中，可推論出競業禁止之定義、內涵，並導出有效性判斷的應然標準。

方法上以民法契約理論，推導出邏輯命題，以探知躲匿於判決或學說等文字後的法律意識。以此為基礎反面論證「離職後競業禁止不能與勞動契約視為同一」並發現離職後競業禁止，本身即為勞動契約外的另一契約，係以離職為停止條件。最終以導出之法律性質，論述離職後競業禁止契約之定義、內容、效力及其實益。本文雖不以離職後競業禁止有效性判斷標準為核心，為說明法律性質論之實益，仍以導出結論，論證五標準說的正確解讀，並將實然的五標準之內容導回至應然。
本文研究方法係以基本理則形成邏輯命題。將法律行為基本原理套入命題，得出斷言句（Assertion），並進一步整理判決及學說所用之文字，以所推論出的斷言句，可知實務及學說對離職後競業禁止法律性質尚乏認識以致於經常矛盾。經分析後可知，實務及學說經常擺盪於二者之間。接著，再以契約之基本原理，「破」除離職後競業禁止約定為勞動契約之一部的可能，然後「立」證該約定、只可能為獨立契約。換言之，先「破」勞動契約一部說，再「立」證獨立契約說。

本文主要目的係證明離職後競業禁止非勞動契約之一部，而係獨立之契約。民法第72條及第247-1條規定之判斷客體非勞動契約而係離職後競業禁止契約。並證明：離職後競業禁止義務之內容、時限、代償措施、違約金等若無對價性，無法通過上開法律檢驗，而得出離職後競業禁止必為有償且雙務之契約的結論。藉由「離職」為競業禁止的停止條件此一發現，以解決訂約與生效時間差之疑義。而擬制條件之不成就理論，可為「違法解僱」不應負競業禁止義務之法律依據。釐清離職後競業禁止性質之過程，尚可得出離職後競業禁止之有效性判斷標準。學說上於競業禁止的爭議問題，除上述的雇主違法解雇是否仍有競業禁止義務、代償如何認定為要件外，尚可解決如：競業禁止義務是不是勞動契約的附隨義務？競業禁止與營業秘密的關係為何？工作規則可否為離職後競業禁止義務的依據？

本文雖然最終以獨立契約說作為結論，然而思考問題的起點，仍為勞動契約。當事人若未約定離職後競業禁止是否仍有相同的義務？若勞動契約有此一義務，即無訂立必要，雖答案應為否定。然欲回答問題，須探討勞動契約附隨義務為何？而得知勞動契約終止後，無論有無約定，離職後仍有保守雇主營業秘密之義務。若為預防員工離職後競業而可能洩露營業秘密，將保守營業秘密義務提前保護，即須簽訂離職後競業禁止。可知競業禁止義務雖與營業秘密相關，卻並非相同。
為解雇主之不當誘因，須說服法院能從嚴審查。不依法理僅憑說理難達目的。本文不隨眾整理有效性要件，而認為只有「法律性質」論，方為解決本爭議之要！
關鍵字：離職後競業禁止約款、營業秘密、競業禁止有效性判斷標準、五標準說、定型化契約、附隨義務、獨立契約說。

關鍵字

離職後競業禁止約款 ； 營業秘密 ； 競業禁止有效性判斷標準 ； 五標準說 ； 定型化契約 ； 附隨義務 ； 獨立契約說

並列摘要

A Study on the Independence of Post-Employment Non-Competition Clause
Abstract
There have been scarcely ever legal disputes on the post-employment non-competition (PENC) issue since the Supreme Court (SC) reached the consensus that the “principle of contract freedom” should be respected. Nevertheless, to prove the invalidity of the PENC clause, there are still quite a lot of courts below the SC apply Article 72 or 247-1 of the Civil Code or other similar provisions to review the clause and to build various criteria or doctrines to challenge the abovementioned consensus, rejected by the SC over and over again. After reviewing the existing statistics, the author found that actually only half of the courts below the SC reviewed the specific cases proactively to deny the validity of the PENC clause. And the author also concluded that due to the probability of winning the lawsuit over 50%, the employers require their employees to sign the PENC agreement only because filing a lawsuit against the employees is so disturbing and threatening instead of the necessity.

The courts have not yet clarified the legal nature of the PENC clause and that’s why this issue could be considered one of the most complicated legal disputes of civil law without a common point of view between the theories and the practices. The courts below the SC apply Article 72 or 247-1 of the Civil Code but what is the object of the Articles? The universal values or concepts such as “public policy and good morals”, “avoiding obvious inequality”, “releasing or reducing the responsibility of the party who prepared the entries of the contract” and “increasing the responsibility of the other party” could not be judged without identifying the applicable object and the relationship of rights & obligations between the parties in advance.

This study focused on the legal nature of the PENC clause, the most fundamental legal concept, to clarify the following relationship between the clause and the labor contract: 1) is the clause part of the contract? 2) is the clause equal to an independent contract?

The author induced the principles from the essential theories of civil law and then deduced the “ought-to-be logics” from those principles. In other words, the author used and analyzed the logics, judgments, doctrines and wording to ascertain the legal nature of the PENC clause, hiding behind the words in the labor contract. Based on which, he proved that “the PENC clause and the labor contract are not to be and not ought to be the same thing” and found as well that “the clause is an independent contract itself subject to the suspenseful condition of post-employment.” And he discussed its legal nature to prove the validity and explained the usefulness of this study. Even though the criteria of validity are not the main focuses of this study, the author still proved the “doctrine of 5 criteria” right and applicable to this issue, explaining the abovementioned usefulness.

One of the main purposes of this study is to clarify that “the PENC clause is not part of the labor contract” and to prove the clause is the applicable object of Article 72 and 247-1 of the Civil Code. And thus the author could prove that the obligation of non-competition, the alternative compensation, and the penalty are in the consideration relationship and the contract shall be non-gratuitous, or the abovementioned Articles could not be applied logically. The discovery that post-employment is the suspenseful condition of the contract could successfully figure out the lag between signing a contract and its taking effect. Moreover, the author found the doctrine of “the condition deemed not to have been fulfilled” could provide the legal base for those who unemployed by reasons not attributing to themselves not to take the obligation of non-competition. Identifying the legal nature exactly right, the author found out the criteria to verdict the validity of the contract by applying the suitable jurisprudence.

To reduce the abovementioned improper inducement of the employers, the author concluded that it’s necessary to persuade the courts to implement enhanced legal review on the validity of the PENC clause. This purpose could not be achieved without legal bases, not to mention only processing the legal logics. Therefore, this study focused on the legal nature of the PENC clause instead of the requirements of its validity discussed in the most existing studies.

keywords:
”non-competition cause / agreement / contract”,“principle of contract freedom”,
“Article 247-1 of the Civil Code”, ”alternative compensation”,
”non-gratuitous contract”,”bilateral contract”,”legal nature”,

並列關鍵字

non-competition cause / agreement / contract ； principle of contract freedom ； Article 247-1 of the Civil Code ； alternative compensation ； non-gratuitous contract ； bilateral contract ； legal nature

參考文獻

何宗霖（2011），我國與日本勞工離職後競業禁止約款效力之比較法研究，臺灣大學法律學院碩士論文，2011年1月。

郭玲惠，勞動契約之合意終止與附解除條件勞動契約之限制，民法研究會第三次學術研討會會議記錄，收錄於「民法研究（一）」，學林出版，1999年9月。

葉韋辰（2010），以法學方法論探討離職後競業禁止約款之效力，臺北大學法律學系碩士論文，2010年7月。

王曼瑜（2014），台灣與英國離職後競業禁止條款之比較法研究，臺灣大學法律學院碩士論文，2014年1月。

詹森林（2006），最高法院與定型化契約法之發展，收錄於「民事法理與判決研究（四）」，元照出版，2006年12月。