지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article examines an alternative non-compete policy for the dual optimization of ex ante investment, with regard to human capital and ex post performance outcomes in labor mobility in Korea, drawing on the theories and practices of covenants not to compete (CNCs) in the United States.
In the United States, CNCs are a commonly chosen contractual measure used by employers to prevent their employees from engaging in certain types of prohibited acts. Today’s doctrine of covenants not to compete in the United States is inherited from the Industrial Revolution, based on courts’ recognition of the importance of corporate intellectual property to economic development. Although some states (e.g., California) have expressed hostility to such agreements, most state courts in the United States enforce covenants not to compete on the basis of a relatively strict “reasonable standards,” which putatively balance the respective parties’ interests.
Currently, scholars approach CNCs from different theoretical perspectives. On the one hand, some scholars argue that CNCs should not be enforced because CNCs limit the rights of workers to exclusively control how their labor is directed. On the other hand, some law-and-economics scholars focus on the ability of CNCs to provide employers with incentive to invest human capital. Recently, many scholars have turned their attention to the effect of knowledge diffusion resulting from restricting labor mobility. They argue that one of the main reasons why California’s Silicon Valley achieved more success in making technical progress, compared with the Route 128 belt outside Boston, Massachusetts involves the comparatively free flow of information in California that the unenforceability of covenants not to compete allowed. Multiple empirical researches also support this argument.
Given the above considerations, lawmakers, including legislators or judges in Korea should consider that, under some circumstances, the unenforceability of employee covenants not to compete creates an informal pooling of knowledge, and that this is more desirable from an efficiency standpoint than the greater internalization of a new technological idea.
In the United States, CNCs are a commonly chosen contractual measure used by employers to prevent their employees from engaging in certain types of prohibited acts. Today’s doctrine of covenants not to compete in the United States is inherited from the Industrial Revolution, based on courts’ recognition of the importance of corporate intellectual property to economic development. Although some states (e.g., California) have expressed hostility to such agreements, most state courts in the United States enforce covenants not to compete on the basis of a relatively strict “reasonable standards,” which putatively balance the respective parties’ interests.
Currently, scholars approach CNCs from different theoretical perspectives. On the one hand, some scholars argue that CNCs should not be enforced because CNCs limit the rights of workers to exclusively control how their labor is directed. On the other hand, some law-and-economics scholars focus on the ability of CNCs to provide employers with incentive to invest human capital. Recently, many scholars have turned their attention to the effect of knowledge diffusion resulting from restricting labor mobility. They argue that one of the main reasons why California’s Silicon Valley achieved more success in making technical progress, compared with the Route 128 belt outside Boston, Massachusetts involves the comparatively free flow of information in California that the unenforceability of covenants not to compete allowed. Multiple empirical researches also support this argument.
Given the above considerations, lawmakers, including legislators or judges in Korea should consider that, under some circumstances, the unenforceability of employee covenants not to compete creates an informal pooling of knowledge, and that this is more desirable from an efficiency standpoint than the greater internalization of a new technological idea.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 미국의 경업금지특약 법리의 전개
Ⅲ. 근로자 경업금지 법제와 지식전파의 상관관계
Ⅳ. 시사점 및 결론
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (2)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문과 연관된 판례 (1)
-
대법원 2003. 7. 16.자 2002마4380 결정
[1] 근로자가 전직한 회사에서 영업비밀과 관련된 업무에 종사하는 것을 금지하지 않고서는 회사의 영업비밀을 보호할 수 없다고 인정되는 경우에는 구체적인 전직금지약정이 없다고 하더라도 부정경쟁방지및영업비밀보호에관한법률 제10조 제1항에 의한 침해행위의 금지 또는 예방 및 이를 위하여 필요한 조치 중의 한 가지로서 그 근
자세히 보기
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
근로자의 경업금지의무
노동법연구
2005 .06
-
퇴직근로자 경업규제의 비교법적 고찰 : 미국과 일본의 판례를 중심으로
노동법연구
2006 .06
-
경업금지약정에서의 대가(반대급부)의 필수성- 서울고등법원 2016라21261 결정의 파장은? -
인권과 정의
2018 .01
-
영업비밀 보호를 위한 경업금지의 허용성에 관련된 요소
저스티스
2012 .08
-
Employees, Trade Secrets and Restrictive Covenants in Korea
원광법학
2018 .01
-
전직금지청구의 정당한 요건 : 대법원 2003. 7. 16.자 2002마 4380결정을 중심으로
노동법학
2009 .09
-
가맹계약에 있어 경업금지특약의 위반과 그 효과
홍익법학
2017 .01
-
이사의 경업금지의무와 경업금지약정
법학연구
2018 .02
-
근로관계종료후의 경업금지의무에 관한 고찰 : 독일과 일본의 논의를 중심으로
노동법학
2009 .03
-
이사가 다른 회사의 지배주주가 된 경우 경업금지의무 위반 여부 : 대법원 2013. 9. 12. 선고, 2011다57869 판결을 중심으로
법학연구
2014 .02
-
일본의 지적 재산권 강화와 근로자의 의무에 관한 법적 쟁점
기업법연구
2006 .09
-
전직금지의무에 관한 소고
동아법학
2016 .02
-
근로자의 비밀유지의무와 영업비밀
중앙법학
2009 .08
-
근로자의 경업금지의무와 계약
노동법학
2010 .06
-
영업비밀의 주요 쟁점에 대한 판례 동향
법이론실무연구
2015 .04
-
근로관계 종료 후 근로자의 경업금지의무
중앙법학
2019 .03
-
영업비밀보호를 위한 전직금지약정과 직업선택의 자유
유럽헌법연구
2019 .01
-
북한의 경제발전 전략 분석:인공위성(광명성3호)발사 시도와 CNC기술 개발
북한연구학회보
2015 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2013-336-000520767