Exclusive
JobKorea fails to prove 'poaching' of employees, loses civil trial

[비즈한국] The conflict between recruitment platforms JobKorea and Remember over the mass resignation of employees has concluded with JobKorea losing the first civil suit for damages. Despite comprehensive legal responses, including criminal charges, reporting to the Fair Trade Commission, and an injunction against job changes and recruitment solicitation, the court ruled in favor of the former executive. The court stated that the mere appearance of an executive moving to a competitor followed by multiple employees cannot be accepted as a violation of non-solicitation agreements.

The conflict, sparked by the successive departures of executives and staff from JobKorea to Remember, developed into a legal battle over the legitimacy of "poaching." This ruling, which follows the dismissal of an injunction last year, is seen as a reaffirmation of the principle of freedom of occupational choice for workers.

"Circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove conspiracy or direction"

According to legal sources, the Seoul Central District Court (Judge Lim Sang-eun, Civil Division 88) dismissed the damages suit filed by JobKorea against a former managing director, Mr. A, on the 21st of last month. JobKorea had sought 100 million KRW in damages, claiming the executive colluded with team leader B to actively induce existing employees to leave after he moved to their competitor, Remember.

Mr. A was an executive who headed the platform sales division for JobKorea and Albamon, and he had signed non-compete and non-solicitation agreements for two years upon his resignation at the end of 2023. After moving to Remember early last year, Mr. A reached an agreement with JobKorea, acknowledging the breach of the non-compete clause and returning 100 million KRW he had received in exchange. However, the obligation to not solicit employees remained in effect.

Subsequently, based on the fact that a team leader and three working-level employees from JobKorea left for Remember starting in April last year, JobKorea argued that Mr. A had intervened in the hiring process or directed and colluded in the departures. In court, JobKorea stated, "We suffered extreme damage as high-performing employees targeted for recruitment left en masse, causing setbacks to our ongoing business," and added, "[The defendant] has an obligation to pay 100 million KRW, part of the damages, and delayed interest." They also presented some internal statements and the relatively fast hiring process as evidence.

However, the court judged that these arguments alone were insufficient to prove a violation of the non-solicitation agreement. While the court acknowledged the circumstances—that many employees left after the executive's departure—it held that there was a lack of evidence that Mr. A had specifically and actively encouraged employees to resign.

The court found that the recruitment schedule could not be considered unusually fast and that there was no objective evidence that Executive A had directly intervened in the hiring. Regarding some employees starting work at Remember before their official resignation dates from JobKorea, the court drew a line, noting, "There is no evidence to suggest that the reason they worked at Remember while using their annual leave before resigning was due to measures taken by the former executive." Statements from team leaders mentioned during internal investigations were deemed mere hearsay and could not be concluded as proof of poaching.

Where will the poaching battle end?

This ruling is an extension of the ongoing conflict between the two companies. Previously, JobKorea filed criminal charges against Remember and the employees for the alleged theft of trade secrets and reported them to the Fair Trade Commission for unfair trade practices. At the same time, it filed for an injunction against job changes and solicitation to restrict the activities of the relocated personnel, but the court dismissed it last year, stating, "There is insufficient data to prove recruitment solicitation or organizational intervention."

The court's stance remained largely unchanged in the first civil trial. It did not rule out the possibility that the employee departures following the executive's resignation were the result of the individuals' free choices, applying the standard that illegality sufficient to restrict competition must be proven. Legal experts interpret this as, "It does not mean that non-compete or non-solicitation agreements are meaningless, but rather it is a confirmation that clear evidence supporting direction, collusion, or intervention is required to claim a violation."

This case is evaluated as a snapshot of the fierce competition in the recruitment platform market. As latecomers like Remember show rapid growth, the competition for talent, including headhunting and encouraging job changes, is intensifying.

When the controversy flared up and legal battles began, Remember stated, "A company that has operated in the recruitment market for over 20 years is using negative strategies against a growing latecomer and escalating it into a legal dispute," revealing their perspective that the conflict is merely a matter of competitive positioning.

Remember also maintained its position, stating, "We have never intentionally sought to recruit talent from a specific company and have conducted experienced hiring in compliance with principles and legal standards," adding, "It is unfortunate that an atmosphere of pressuring latecomers is being created in a market where fair competition should take place."

There is speculation that JobKorea might appeal, aiming to have the validity and enforceability of the non-compete and non-solicitation clauses re-examined by a higher court. However, a JobKorea official said regarding the ruling, "As this is a case currently in trial, it is difficult to answer specific details." Remember also did not release a separate statement, citing that it is a civil lawsuit against an individual.

This ruling is expected to have a significant impact on similar disputes in the future. An industry official remarked, "As disputes between companies increase in the platform and tech sectors, where talent mobility is frequent, proving actual conduct will become more important than contract clauses."