Bilibili was claimed 2 million yuan, the second trial changed the verdict

2022-06-26 0 By

Signed the non-competition restrictions of the employee job-hopping, the original company claims, the court how to judge?Technician Mr. Wang from wind information technology co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as the wind) to move to Shanghai bi li bi li technology co., LTD. (hereinafter referred to as bi li bi miles), wind that Mr Wang in violation of the non-compete agreement, signed by both parties for arbitration request Mr. Wang returned to the down payment of non-competition compensation and pay penalty due to breach of non-compete 2 million yuan,The arbitration upheld Wind’s claim.Mr. Wang refused to accept the arbitration and filed a lawsuit. The first instance ruled that Mr. Wang returned the compensation and paid liquidated damages of 240,000 yuan. Mr. Wang refused to accept and appealed to Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court).Recently, the second trial of the case was concluded, and it was concluded that the violation of non-competition should not be confined to the business scope registered in the business license, but should be judged by a comprehensive review of the service objects of the company and the work content of the employees. It was concluded that Mr. Wang continued to perform the non-competition agreement, but there was no need to return the compensation and pay liquidated damages.In July 2018, Mr. Wang entered WIND and signed a labor contract from July 2, 2018 to August 31, 2021, in which Mr. Wang assumed the position of intelligent data analysis with a monthly income of 20,000 yuan.In July 2019, Mr. Wang and WIND signed a non-competition agreement, which stipulated the rights and obligations of both parties concerning non-competition.In July 2020, Mr. Wang submitted his resignation to Wind and terminated the labor contract with Wind.Then Wind sent Mr. Wang a reminder letter on non-competition, requiring him to abide by the non-competition agreement, and the company would pay him compensation for non-competition. He needed to provide the labor contract and social security records of the new unit.After that, Wind paid 6,796 yuan of non-competition compensation to Mr. Wang in August and September 2020, but did not receive the labor contract and other information from Mr. Wang.After urging the company to no effect, Wande considered that it violated the non-competition agreement signed by both parties, and applied for arbitration to the labor and personnel Dispute arbitration Committee. After the arbitration investigation, Mr. Wang was newly employed by Bilibili.In February 2021, the arbitration commission made a ruling: Mr. Wang continued to perform the non-competition obligation in accordance with the agreement, returned the paid compensation of 6,796 Yuan, and paid non-competition penalty of 2 million yuan as agreed in the agreement.Mr. Wang refused to accept, sued to the court.First: employees in violation of the non-compete agreement, pay liquidated damages of 240000 Mr. Wang thinks he is through bi bi li, compete with the wind is not what he is engaged in the field of work also is different with previous work, so the request to cancel the arbitral award, commuted don’t need to continue to perform the non-compete obligation, without return the compensation and pay penalty due to breach of contract.The first-instance court held that Wind and Bilibili have overlapping business scope and belong to competitive enterprises, and Mr. Wang’s positions in the two companies are related positions in the computer field, and there is a potential possibility of using the business secrets he has mastered in Wind to infringe their competitive advantages.Accordingly, Mr. Wang’s behavior violates the agreement of competition limitation.As for the amount of liquidated damages, Since Wind did not provide evidence to prove the amount of losses caused by Mr. Wang’s breach of contract, Mr. Wang thought that the agreed liquidated damages were too much higher than the actual losses suffered by Wind. Therefore, according to Mr. Wang’s monthly salary standard and the years of working in Wind, the amount of liquidated damages could be adjusted to 240,000 yuan.The first-instance court then ordered Mr. Wang to continue to perform the non-competition obligation, return the compensation and pay liquidated damages of 240,000 yuan.Mr. Wang refused to accept, appeal to Shanghai one middle court.The second: whether in violation of the non-competition needs comprehensive judgment A second trial, Mr. Wang submitted wind wind financial mobile phones terminal screenshots, wind website screenshot, the wind in the trill with beep beep miles platform account information such as new evidence, showing that wind and bi li bi li audience completely different, the two there is no competition, so it does not violate the non-compete agreement.Request to set aside the judgment of first instance and support his appeal of first instance.About whether Mr. Wang violates the stipulation of the non-competition agreement.Shanghai no. 1 Intermediate Court believes that in this case, compared with the business scope of the two companies, there is indeed some overlap.But Internet companies are often at the time of registration, scope of business includes software and hardware development, technology consultation, technology transfer, technical services, such as only based on this, will clearly for employment, especially the Internet software engineer re-employment huge obstacle, cause great waste of social human resources, also goes against the non-compete system of legislative intention.Therefore, when judging whether the competition is formed, the company should also be combined with the actual business content and audience and other factors to make a comprehensive evaluation.In this case, Mr. Wang provided evidence to prove that Wind claimed on its Wind financial mobile phone terminal that Wind financial terminal is the choice of hundreds of thousands of financial professionals and the best production tool and platform for China’s financial industry, and Wind’s official website also has such introduction.It can be seen that wind’s current business model is mainly to provide financial information services, and its main audiences are related financial institutions or financial academic research institutions.Bilibili, on the other hand, is known for its cultural community and video platform, which provides an online space for users to upload videos and communicate.It has a wider audience, especially among young people.There is a significant gap between them in terms of business model, corresponding market and audience.Under this premise, WIND claims that the two enterprises form a competitive relationship only because the business scope registered by both parties overlapped, and has not fulfilled its obligation of proof.What’s more, the key restricted enterprises in the appendix of WIND’s non-competition agreement are all in the financial information industry, which shows that WIND considers its main competitors to be financial information service enterprises.Therefore, Mr. Wang in this case did not violate the provisions of the non-competition agreement.On whether Mr. Wang should continue to perform the non-competition agreement.Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court held that the non-competition agreement signed by Mr. Wang and Wind does not violate the mandatory provisions of laws and regulations, so the agreement is legal and valid and binding on both parties.As it is still within the period of non-competition, both parties shall continue to perform the non-competition agreement.Shanghai one intermediate people’s Court then decided that Mr. Wang continued to perform the competition restriction agreement, and changed the judgment that it does not need to return the compensation and pay liquidated damages.Declaration: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author, if there is a source error or infringement of your legitimate rights and interests, you can contact us through the mailbox, we will promptly deal with.Email address: