加盟契約競業禁止條款之研究

Abstract

加盟契約中，雙方往往會約定「競業禁止條款」，約定加盟店於契約終止後不得在一定時間及地域範圍內經營相同或相似之事業。加盟契約中之競業禁止條款因無專法規範其效力，法院於審查其效力時，常以民法第72條或民法第247條之1作為依據。惟民法第72條之「公序良俗」或247條之1之「顯失公平」皆為不確定法律概念，仍需由法院透過法益衡量的方式，建立實際判斷要素與標準，以充實此等不確定法律概念的內涵。 而實務發展出的判斷要素，則有合理性標準、參考勞動契約競業禁止條款之五標準、三標準或創設加盟契約專屬之審查標準等，我國的加盟類型大致可分為直營連鎖、自願加盟、特許加盟、委託加盟等四類，本文分析外國學說、判決及我國實務判決後，認為「必要性」與「合理性」為所有加盟類型共通之標準，而在直營連鎖、特許加盟、委託加盟三種類型，由於總部對加盟店的控制力強，加盟者具有從屬性、地位近似於勞工，具有值得被保護的特殊性，故我國勞動基準法第九條之一規定之代償措施與期間之上限應作為上述三種加盟類型競業禁止條款之要件。 在審查流程上，應先判斷加盟總部是否有值得保護之利益，(即必要性之審查)，本文認為客戶資訊、Know-How、對加盟店的訓練、商譽、商圈保持，都可以認為是加盟總部值得保護的利益。在合理性的判斷上，雖難以界定絕對之標準，但審查時仍需連結加盟總部之利益為考量，依照個案中加盟總部所值得保護的利益之不同，判斷競業禁止條款限制的合理性。 競業禁止約款的內容之必要性(值得保護的利益)與合理性(時間、地域、業種)，仍需因各種不同加盟事業類型、市場現況而在個案上有不同之判斷，因此仍需藉由司法機關累積一定案件以形成標準，增加競業禁止條款生效要件的明確性及判決之可預測性，也使得加盟總部與加盟店在締約磋商時更有效率，因此未來我國實務判決之發展，仍值得觀察。

Many franchise agreements include a covenant not to compete which obligates the franchisee not to operate in another business similar to franchised business within limited time and scope. Because of the absence of uniform statutory franchise covenant law, courts usually determine whether the covenant is enforceable by article 72 or article 247-1 of Taiwan civil code. However, there are indefinite legal concepts in these clauses and need to be interpreted by striking a balance between competing legal interests in each individual case. Standard of reasonableness, the theories of five criteria or three criteria in post-employment covenants not to compete, and a standard exclusive for franchise agreement are some criteria that courts adopt when determining the enforceability of the covenant. There are four basic types of franchise in Taiwan. They are regular chain, franchise chain, authorized chain and voluntary chain. After analyzing different theories and judgements, my research found that standard of reasonableness and legitimacy are common standards for covenants not to compete in all types of franchises. In regular chain, franchise chain, authorized chain, due to the strong control from the franchisor and the dependency of franchisee, the franchisee is similar to an employee and need to be protected. As a result, article 9-1of labor standards law which includes an upper limit of period and compensation payment can be applied to these three types of franchise by analogy. When determining the enforceability of covenants not to compete, legitimacy is the first to be considered. Customer information, Know-How, training for the franchisee, goodwill and maintenance of customer relationship are legitimate business interests in franchise agreements. The standard of reasonableness is the second step. It is hard to define a specific standard for time and scope, but it has to connect to the legitimate business interests when determining the limits of time and scope in different cases. The legitimacy and rationality of covenant not to compete in franchise agreement must be in accordance with different types of franchises and market conditions. As a result, criteria can be formed from case accumulation by judicial authority to enhance the predictability of enforcement and efficiency of contract negotiations. It seems that there will be further reliance by the courts on a case-by-case basis to set forth more precise standards and rules to govern the enforceability of covenants not to compete in franchise agreements.