Stopping a Former Employee From Joining a Competitor: Non-Compete Injunctions in Korea

A key employee resigns and moves straight to a competitor. For many employers, the first question is whether they can litigate to stop that move before real damage is done. The answer is yes, through a non-compete injunction, but only under specific conditions.

This post gives a short introduction to how these injunctions work in Korea.

What Is a Non-Compete Injunction?

Legal basis for a non-compete injunction is the Article 300, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Execution Act, known as an injunction to fix a temporary status.

Applied to a departing employee, the injunction orders that person to stop working for a named competitor, or to stop performing certain duties there, until the underlying dispute is resolved.

Requirements for granting the injunction

To grant this kind of injunction, a Korean court looks at two things. First, the employer needs a right worth protecting, called the preserved right. This is usually a written non-compete agreement with the employee, or, even without one, the employer's trade secrets under the Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act. Second, the employer needs to show urgency, called the necessity of preservation. The employer must show that without quick court action, the harm from the competitor move cannot be adequately fixed later through damages alone.

Both elements matter. A valid non-compete agreement with no real urgency, or urgent facts with no underlying legal right, will not be enough on its own.

Does the Employer Need a Signed Agreement?

It is strongly recommended to prepare a signed agreement prepared by an attorney. Without one, while the employer can still seek an injunction based on trade secret protection, this can be achieved only by showing the employee is actually likely to use or disclose specific trade secrets in the new role.

How Courts Decide Whether the Restriction Is Enforceable

However, one should note that even with a signed agreement, Korean courts will not automatically enforce it. Courts weigh several factors together, rather than applying a fixed formula.

The first factor is whether the employer has a genuinely protectable interest, meaning trade secrets or other information and know-how unique to the employer, rather than knowledge the employee would naturally gain in any similar job or information already available publicly. The second is the employee's position and length of service before leaving, since restricting a senior employee with real access to sensitive information is easier to justify than restricting a junior employee with none. The third is the duration of the restriction. Recent cases tend to treat around one year as a reasonable outer limit absent special circumstances, with anything longer facing closer scrutiny. The fourth is the geographic and occupational scope of the restriction, which must be no broader than necessary. The fifth is whether the employee received real compensation for accepting the restriction, such as a separate allowance, beyond ordinary salary. Courts also weigh the circumstances under which the employee left the company, and broader considerations of public interest.

An agreement that is too long, too broad, or was signed without any real benefit to the employee is at real risk of being struck down, even if it was clearly written and voluntarily signed.

Practical Takeaways for Employers in Korea

Employers who want this option available should prepare well before any dispute arises. Use written non-compete agreements for employees with genuine access to trade secrets or sensitive client relationships, not as a blanket policy for every hire. Keep the restricted period, geographic scope, and prohibited roles narrow and specific to the real risk involved. Provide identifiable consideration for the restriction, separate from ordinary pay.

This post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on a specific non-compete or employee departure issue, please consult qualified Korean counsel. Feel free to contact us as well.

© 2026 SJ Chun. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced, copied, or republished, in whole or in part, without prior written permission from the author.