2017-08-012024-05-18https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/701230摘要：日本債權法改正對勞動關係將帶來如何的影響，於日本學界引起了廣泛的討論。或許是基於對2007年制定之勞動契約法的尊重，最後債權法改正針對雇用契約的修正僅止於3個條文，然而，由於其向國會提出的法律案中，新增了定型約款的規定，則該等規定於工作規則、勞動契約是否有所適用、其與勞動契約法中關於就業規則規定之關係應為如何之解釋，學界的看法並不一致而有所爭論。相較於此，台灣於1999年債編修正時，即制定了民法第247條之1，對定型化契約之效力進行規制，而實務上亦常見勞工主張依該條來判斷最低就業服務年限、離職後競業禁止約定之效力的主張，然法院多採取消極的審查態度。 本研究擬分析日本債權法改正對勞動關係將帶來之影響，並聚焦於定型約款與就業規則的關係，兼論我國民法第247條之1於勞動關係之適用。 <br> Abstract: About the effect on labor relations by the reform of the law of obligation in Japan is a very important issue in academic circles. It is said that due to the respect to the Labor Contract Act established in 2007, only 3 articles of the employment contract are amended. However, the reform of the law of obligation includes the provisions of adhesive contract clause, and how those provisions work with the work rules, the labor contract, and the Labor Contract is controversial. On the other hand, Civil Code § 247-1 was established in 1999 in Taiwan to control the adhesive contract clause. Employees usually claim after-resignation business strife limitation agreement or a minimum service period agreement is void by Civil Code § 247-1 , but the courts do not accept that positively. This research will analyze the effect on labor relations by the reform of the law of obligation in Japan, and also discuss how Civil Code § 247-1 work with labor relations in Taiwan.債權法改正定型化契約民法第247條之1最低就業服務年限離職後競業禁止約定the reform of the law of obligationadhesive contractCivil Code § 247-1after-resignation business strife limitation agreementa minimum service period agreement