離職後違反競業禁止條款之個案研究

A Case Study of Non-competition Agreement Violation After Departure

陳以儒(Chen,I-Ju)

指導教授 ： 陳銘薰

國立臺北大學/商學院/企業管理學系/碩士(2008年)

摘要

離職後競業禁止條款，乃是企業為了保護其營業秘密、維護正當營業利益或其他類似之理由，與離職的員工簽訂協議，約定員工在離職後，不得從事或自創與原雇主相同或類似的事業，以保護原雇主的營業秘密。早期人力資源管理以及法律界對此等條款，認為基於民事私法自治、契約自由原則，企業得與員工雙方就員工離職後關於特定事項得以雙方合意簽訂此等約款，並予以信守。

企業在人力資源管理上，培訓員工雖為人力資源管理之課題之一，在推心置腹下，無私的將營業秘密等機密與員工分享，但如此培訓員工後，卻因員工離職後轉到同業競爭廠商任職，而將企業重要資訊或者員工在企業培訓制度下所獲得之知識、能力予同業競爭廠商使用，如此一來，將對企業造成重大的危害，近年來，企業遂以離職後競業禁止條款對離職員工加以限制，如此說來似屬合理。然而，倘若離職員工違反該約定，企業在無薪可扣的狀況下，只能透過訴訟途徑予以請求給付違約金。然而，這項針對離職員工就業自由限制之人力資源管理方式，近年來卻受到司法實務介入審查，並透過判決予以推翻並宣告無效，因此在實務運作上是否確能達到其效果，實值得研究。因此，企業在人力資源管理上若與離職員工訂定離職後競業禁止條款，該條款是否應受到法院的審查？以及審查的條件究竟如何？若以附合契約的方式訂定，又是否有違反民法第247條之1的規定，而受到法院審查認定此項約款無效？則為本文所要深入研究的課題。

本文試圖以近十年來台灣台北地方法院對於離職後競業禁止條款爭議之相關判決及其上訴審判決作為基礎，輔以相關訴訟個案背景、雙方訴訟上攻防重點、各級法院判決結果及理由等資料，透過司法實務肯定審查之要件，以個案研究法的方式，以實證研究台北地院對於離職後競業禁止條款之審查態度及結果，而從台北地院近十年來相關訴訟案例結果發現，近年來該法院見解逐漸傾向保護勞方，而採取介入審查、從嚴審查之見解，因此也代表著隨之而來以判決宣示個案所訂離職後競業禁止條款無效之情形，將會逐漸增加之趨勢。本文並建議企業在與員工訂定離職後競業禁止條款時除了必須符合學說五條件說外，然就訴訟實務觀之，離職後競業禁止條款絕非萬靈丹，企業並得透過與員工間保密協定之簽訂以及對於公司專案培訓員工簽訂最低服務年限之方法限制員工離職期間之方式，以達保障公司營業秘密以及營業利益之目的。

關鍵字

競業禁止條款；代償措施；懲罰性違約金；契約自由

並列摘要

The non-competition agreement after job departure is the agreement signed between the departure employee and enterprise in order to protect business secret, maintain proper business benefit or other similar reason. The agreement is after the employee departs from the job such person cannot engage or create on its own same or similar business as the original employer so as to protect the business secret of the original employer. In the early stage and on this kind of agreement, the manpower resource management and legal sector was of the opinion that based on civil private law autonomy and contract freedom principle, enterprise could sign this kind of agreement in regard to specific matter between both the enterprise and employee after the employee departed from the job and this should be complied with. However, for this manpower resource management method with employment freedom restriction aiming at departed employee, recently this has actually been overthrown and announced as invalid by the judicial practice through ruling. Therefore, this would worth research on whether its effect can be achieved in respect of practical operation.
In manpower resource management, if enterprise establishes the non-competition agreement with departure employee after its departure from the job, should this agreement be examined by the court? What is the condition of the examination? If this is established in the form of attached contract, will this violate the provision of Article 247-1 of the Civil Code and will be recognized by the court examination that this agreement is invalid ?
This essay attempts to base on the practical ruling opinion of the court and the essentials of the affirmed examination by judicial practice and individual case research method to research on the content of the non-competition agreement after job departure and what should be the appropriate method to establish the agreement. In addition, the research will provide a structure on presently how the enterprise sector should apply the manpower resource management in regard to non-competition agreement after job departure. In addition, this research will present suggestion to enterprise on the establishment of non-competition agreement after the employee departs from the job so as to provide contribution to the research on how to innovate manpower resource management practice.

並列關鍵字

Non-competition Agreement ； compensation payment ； punitive damage ； freedom of contract

參考文獻

11. 林更盛，「定型化離職後競業禁止約款的審查--評最高法院九四年臺上字第一六八八號判決」，臺灣本土法學雜誌，2006.10，頁249-252。

26. 曾勝珍，「『美國離職後競業禁止條款』之適用探討--兼比較我國法」，國立中正大學法學集刊，2004.01，頁395-443。

14. 林振芳，「由大陸勞動合同法草案之規定以觀兩岸對於離職後競業禁止條款之效力認定問題」，法令月刊，2007.03，頁74-89。

29. 程法彰，「中美間關於保護營業秘密而為員工離職後競業禁止規定之分析」，法令月刊，2006.01，頁4-14。

10. 周光輝，離職後競業禁止及其替代措施之研究－以車燈業技術勞工為例，國立成功大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2003。