「補償型」最低服務年限條款之適法性探討──評析臺灣高等法院臺南分院108年度上字第124號民事判決

A Study on the Minimum Service Period Agreement with Reasonable Compensation－Comment on Taiwan High Court Tainan Branch Court Civil Judgment 108 Shang-Tzu No. 124

最低服務年限條款在實務上之運用行之有年，直到2015年12月勞基法修法，立法者始增訂勞基法第15條之1作為「最低服務年限條款」效力判斷之依據，在本次修法中，除了將過去較為熟知之「培訓型」最低服務年限條款納入本條規範外，尚增訂了「補償型」之最低服務年限條款。本文將著眼於「補償型」最低服務年限條款之適法性探討。於整理、觀察我國實務涉及「補償型」條款爭議之判決後，本文發現法院對此類條款尚未建立出較為明確之判斷標準，為此，本文擬從比較法的觀點，介紹德國實務對於「返還條款」之處理方式，以作為我國法制之借鏡。

In practice, minimum service period clauses have been used for many years. It wasn’t until the amendment of the Labor Standards Act in December 2015 that legislators added Article 15-1 to the Act as a basis for determining the validity of“minimum service period clauses.”This amendment included the previously well-known“training-type”minimum service period clauses and introduced the“compensation-type”minimum service period clauses. This article focuses on the legality of the“compensation-type”minimum service period clauses. Upon reviewing and observing court decisions related to disputes involving“compensation-type”clauses in our country, the author found that the courts have not yet established clear standards for judging such clauses. Therefore, this article aims to provide a comparative legal perspective by introducing how German jurisprudence handles“return clauses”as a reference for our legal system.