以法學方法論探討離職後競業禁止約款之效力

The Validity of Post-Employment Noncompetition Agreements from the Perspective of Legal Method

葉韋辰(Wei-Chen Yeh)

指導教授 ： 劉幸義

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2010年)

摘要

目前國內對於離職後競業禁止契約條款並沒有明文之法律規定，而任由當事人以契約自由原則自行約定之，當發生違約而訴諸法律途徑救濟時，多由法院作為最後一道防線來審查該離職後競業禁止契約條款是否具有合理性，而法院在審查上則為委由法官就個案「利益衡量」方法，又為避免論理空洞，故援引憲法15條生存權、工作權及財產權保障，依據判例、學說與國外例法來創設出個各項參考標準來，然此種以提衡量標準，但其間卻欠缺一個由所有法益與其價值的確定階層秩序，來訴諸法官藉經驗法則與論理法則判斷之方法，是否會造成主觀性過強?裁判的結果難以預測而喪失法安定性？是否有一套明確的方法以利操作，個案利益衡量是否有客觀性?我國實務介入私權紛爭是否有正當性？本文嘗試以法學方法論的角度探討之。

關鍵字

離職後競業禁止約款 ； 法學方法論

並列摘要

Currently on turnover after the Post-Employment Noncompetition Agreement, and there is no express provision of law, while allowing the parties to the principle of freedom from the contract agreement of the Bank, the event of default resort to legal means of relief, and more by the court as future review of the last line of defense after the turnover noncompete contract clauses whether Rationality, and the court was appointed on the review of the case by the judge, "interest measure" approach, but also to avoid the logic empty, it invokes to the Constitutional 15 right to life, right to work and property rights protection, based on jurisprudence, doctrine and foreign case law to create a one of the reference standard, however this measure to raise, but during which lacks a legal interest of all sectors of the order to determine its value to resort to the judge by the rule of thumb methods and logical law judge, will result in excessive subjectivity? Judge the results difficult to predict stability loss method? Is a clear-cut way to facilitate the operation of determining whether there are cases in the interests of objectivity? The practices involved in private rights disputes have legitimacy? This article attempts to explore the issue from the point of legal methodological theory.

並列關鍵字

Post-Employment Noncompetition Agreement ； Legal Methodological Theory

參考文獻

21.林鈺雄，刑事訴訟法（上冊），自刊，2003年9月，3版。

49.詹森林，競業禁止及保密條款契約實務，經濟部智慧財產局，2007年2月。

2.王鵬翔，基本權作為最佳化命令與框架秩序－從原則理論初探立法餘地(gesetzgeberische Spielräume)問題，載於東吳法律學報，第18卷第3期，2007年4月，頁4。

20.張嘉尹，論「價值秩序」作為憲法學的基本概念，台大法學論叢，第30卷第5期，頁16-17。

27.陳顯武，論法學上規則與原則之區分—由非單調邏輯之觀點出發，台大法學論叢，34卷1期，2005年1月，頁24以下。