영업비밀보호를 위한 경업금지와 직무발명자에 대한 정당한 보상의 관계
Relationship between a Non-Competition Agreement for Trade-Secret Protection and Reasonable Compensation for an Employee Inventor
0
조회
0
다운로드
12
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Abstract
Trade secrets can be classified into two categories: technical information and managemental information. Because a trade secret as technical information normally could be an employee invention, if a company enjoys profit due to such an employee invention (trade secret), regardless of patent application filing, the company should pay reasonable compensation (corresponding to said profit) to the trade secret creator (inventor) under Articles 15 and 16 of the Invention Promotion Act. Such compensation must be continuous as far as the company keeps enjoying profit, regardless of the employee's retirement. To prevent an ex-employee from competing against the company, it may proclaim that she will inevitably disclose or exploit its trade secret. In other words, the relevant trade secret provides the company with any kind of economic profit and the competition causes damages to the profit. In that sense, we can deduce such a conclusion that the company should pay reasonable compensation (corresponding to said profit) to her (trade secret creator, inventor). If the company has not payed such compensation, the non-payment is a good evidence that the trade secret has not provided the company with profit and there is no legal basis for the company to file a non-competition suit. If the company files a non-competition suit admitting that there should have been compensation, it should pay reasonable compensation against so-far profit and should keep paying compensation as far as it keeps enjoying profit from the trade secret. If amount of the compensation is nominal, the court may not approve requested non-competition. If relevant trade secret must be protected at the sacrifice of freedom of occupation, exchange of information and free competition, it should provide the company with more than certain amount of profit. Therefore, we can conclude that, filing a non-competition suit, a company should be prepared for paying considerable compensation. So far a company has nothing to lose upon filing a non-competition suit, in that sense, such a suit could have been misused. Such misuse may deter freedom of occupation, exchange of information and free competition. It may restrain misuse of a non-competition suit to consider reasonable compensation on a trader secret with regard to the non-competition suit. It is highly recommended that upon deciding reasonableness of a non-competition agreement, the court consider existence of reasonable compensation as well as the value of trade secret protection and freedom of occupation.
참고문헌 (27)
- 김철환, "직무발명에 있어서의 직무해당성, 특허판례연구", pp.738~739 (2009), 박영사
- 김준효, "직무발명 60답문", pp.39~ (2008), 인쇄골
- 장만철, "직무발명의 최근 국내 판례", 특허청 직무발명연구회 제2회 세미나(2005. 6. 10.) 발표자료 (2005)
- 나종갑, "영업비밀보호가 과학기술발전에 미치는 영향에 관한 법제도 연구", 법조, 58(6), pp.172~216 (2009), 법조협회
- 나종갑, "부정경쟁방지 및 영업비밀보호에 관한 법률상의 技術상 또는 經營상의 情報의 의미", 무역구제, 통권 : 15 (2004)
- 윤선희, "영업비밀에 있어서의 경영상 정보", 창작과 권리 (2005), 세창출판사
- 특허청, "직무발명제도 이렇게 바뀌었습니다", 특허청, 30~31 (2006)
- 특허청, "개정 직무발명제도", 특허청, 72~75 (2006)
- 문선영, "근로자의 직무발명과 정당한 보상에 관한 연구", 경희법학, 43(3), pp.437~465 (2008), 법학연구소
- 정차호, "2006년 개정 직무발명제도의 제 문제점 및 재개정방안", 창작과 권리, 48, pp.2~34 (2007), 세창출판사
- 임종률, "노동법제8판", pp.336~ (2008), 박영사
- 장홍선, "판례상 나타난 영업비밀침해금지기간과 전직금지기간 및 그 기간의 산정에 관하여 - 대법원 2003. 7. 16.자 2002마4380 결정", 판례연구, 16, pp.781~848 (2005), 부산판례연구회
- 정상조, "영업비밀침해금지청구권의 시간적 범위", 상사판례연구, 5, pp.392~ (2000)
- 최정환, "근로자의 전직금지약정과 영업비밀 보호의무 - 대법원 2003. 7. 16.자 2002마4380 결정, 정보법 판례백선", pp.812~ (2003), 박영사
- 이성호, "근로자에 대한 경업금지약정의 효력과 전직금지가처분의 허용 여부", 저스티스, 34(4), pp.89~ (2001), 한림법학원
- 신권철, "퇴직근로자 경업규제의 비교법적 고찰 - 미국과 일본의 판례를 중심으로", 노동법연구, (20), pp.183~216 (2006), 서울대학교노동법연구회
- 특허청, "개정 발명진흥법에 따른 직무발명 보상절차 가이드라인", 특허청, ~ (2006)
- 이승길, "기업의 직무발명과 그 보상에 관한 연구, 노동법연구", 서울대학교 노동법연구회, 281~ (2002)
- 정차호, "공동발명자 결정방법 및 공동발명자간 공헌도 산정방법 중앙법학", 중앙대학교 법학연구소, ~ (2007)
- Rachel S., "Bargaining for Loyalty in the Information Age: A Reconsideration of the Role of Substantive Fairness in Enforcing Employee Noncompetes", Or. L. Rev., 80, pp.1163~ (2001)
- Ronald J. Gilson, "The Legal Infrastructure of High Technology Industrial Districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and Covenants Not to Compete", N.Y.U. L. Rev., 74, pp.607~ (1999)
- 정상조, "불공정경쟁행위의 규제", 법학, 45(3) (2004), 서울대학교 법학연구소
- 나종갑, "국제 M&A 및 인력이동과 첨단산업 기술유출 방지제도 연구", 경영법률, 19(2), pp.75~116 (2009), 한국경영법률학회