[1] The validity of the contract prohibiting transfer between the employer and the employee (the validity of the contract with limited authority)

[2] The case holding that a contract prohibiting transfer between an employer and an employee is valid

[1] An agreement between an employer and an employee on the prohibition of occupation is a sort of agreement on prohibition of occupation and employment, and in a case where it is recognized that the background, content, and period of the agreement is reasonable, such agreement does not infringe on the freedom of choice of occupation guaranteed by the Constitution, and cannot be deemed as an

[2] The case holding that the agreement is valid in consideration of the fact that the purpose of the agreement on the prohibition of competitive business is to prevent an employee from causing damage to the company to which he/she belongs by working in the same type of business or employed in another competitive selling company, etc. through information on sales methods, etc. which he/she became aware of during his/her resignation after his/her resignation and a list of customers, etc., and that the period of prohibition is one year and is not an excessive restriction on his

[1] Articles 103 and 105 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 103 and 105 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da8229 delivered on June 13, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2170)

Applicant Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Respondent (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorneys Choi Ho-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. Subject to the condition that the Claimant deposits 20,000,000 won as a guarantee for the Respondent within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the notice of this decision, or submits to the Respondent a document concluding a payment guarantee entrustment contract with the amount of insurance

A. Until February 28, 1998, the respondent shall not be employed by any domestic office, business office, branch office, Dong company, or affiliated company of Dong company, etc. invested in Korea and established by any affiliated company of Dong company, any domestic office, business office, branch office, Dong company, or Dong company.

B. The respondent shall not disclose or use trade secrets listed in the separate sheet to any person other than the applicant.

2. The applicant's remaining requests are dismissed.

3. Costs of application shall be borne by the respondent.

The decision and the respondent mentioned in Section 1-A(a) of the Disposition shall not disclose or use any trade secrets listed in the separate sheet, the customer list of the applicant's products, the applicant's business strategy, and all trade secrets falling under the applicant's business know-how of the company. The respondent shall pay KRW 1,00,000 per day to the applicant where the respondent violates the obligation described in Section 1-A(a) of the Disposition, and KRW 100,000 per case where the respondent violates the obligation not to trade secrets, and KRW 1,00,000 per case where the obligation not to trade secrets is violated. The enforcement officer shall give

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the records of this case, the respondent who was a Korean corporation that sells pharmaceutical products including kidne treatment and treatment equipment, etc. and medical equipment imported by the applicant company on June 17, 1992, agreed not to engage directly or indirectly in business affairs with the applicant company for one year after the retirement. The respondent was responsible for the domestic sales strategy, price determination, and sales sector of p-2 amount (hereinafter the product of this case) related to the treatment of kidne patients, the respondent was responsible for the applicant company's domestic sales strategy, price determination, meeting of the person in charge of business, factory visits, etc. The respondent retired from the applicant company on February 28, 1997, the respondent did not inform the applicant company of the trade secrets listed in the attached list through various domestic and foreign academic competitions, meetings of the person in charge of business, and visits, etc., and the information about the applicant company's imported company or its sales company's imported company's imported company's imported company or its sales company's sales company's imported company's employees.

2. As to an application for prohibition of change of occupation

The agreement between the employer and his employee is a kind of agreement on the prohibition of occupation. If the conclusion of the agreement on the prohibition of occupation is recognized to be reasonable in the background, contents, and period of the agreement, it shall not be regarded as a violation of good public order and good morals. Thus, the purpose of the agreement on the prohibition of occupation of this case, which the respondent entered the applicant company, is to prevent the applicant company from causing damage to the applicant company by getting the respondent to work in the same type of business or by getting employed in the same type of business or by using customer list, etc. using information about the sales method he became aware of during his employment and customer list, and the prohibition period is not an excessive restriction on the respondent as one year. Considering that the prohibition period is not an excessive restriction on the respondent, the agreement in this case shall be deemed an effective competitive business agreement. Since the respondent works as a responsible person at the domestic office of the above applicant company, such as that the applicant company imports and sells dives in the same manner as the company imports and sells it, the applicant's application for the prohibition of occupation of this case is justified

3. As to the application for prohibition of trade secret infringement

The applicant company is a kind of domestic sales corporation that imports finished products from the head office and distributes them to the hospital by explaining the advantages and characteristics of the product. The cost analysis data of the product, agency margin, discount rate, price, new product development plan, etc. should be considered as important trade secrets and business assets.

However, among the trade secrets claimed by the applicant, the customer list, the applicant company's business strategy, and the trade secret matters falling under the business know-how are unclear, and there is no sufficient proof to specify it. Therefore, the part seeking the prohibition of infringement on this part is without merit.

4. As to the application,

If the respondent violates the duty of prohibition of competition and infringement of trade secrets, the part seeking monetary payment should be made by the indirect compulsory enforcement method of Article 693 of the Civil Procedure Act, so there is no reason, and it is judged that the disclosure by the enforcement officer is inappropriate.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the application of this case is partially reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Judge)