[Unfair competition / Non-compete] Osaka District Court, Reiwa 5 (Wa) 9115 <Presiding Judge Matsuami>
更新日：2 時間前
Article information
Article type: Case note
Categories: Other Japanese law
Main issues: Non-compete obligations / Damages
First published on this website: October 1, 2026
Case reference (as stated in the original): Reiwa 5 (Wa) 9115
Display and classification checked: October 1, 2026 (not a revalidation of the legal analysis)
[Unfair competition / Non-compete] Osaka District Court, Reiwa 5 (Wa) 9115 <Presiding Judge Matsuami>
* The geographic scope of the non-compete provision was too broad, rendering it invalid.
⇒ No narrowing construction, in view of its deterrent effect.
(Preparatory acts during employment violated ancillary obligations under the employment contract, but only a small damages award was granted.)
(Excerpts from the judgment — English translation)
“The non-compete provision prohibits operating a competing business without the plaintiff's permission ‘within a radius of 2 kilometers from this corporation’ during employment and for six months after retirement.
The plaintiff's welfare division alone has approximately ten locations in addition to its head office. ‘Within a radius of 2 kilometers from this corporation’ must therefore be construed as prohibiting opening a business within 2 kilometers of every one of those locations (the plaintiff's argument is likewise understood).
Given the nature of the plaintiff's business, a post-employment non-compete for a certain period and distance from a location in which the employee was actually involved could be reasonable. However, this provision also covers entirely unrelated locations, excessively restricts freedom to choose an occupation, and is invalid as contrary to public order and morals. (Given the deterrent effect of such a provision, it cannot be construed narrowly and treated as valid within that narrower scope.)”
No compensatory measures sufficient to justify the broad prohibition on competition had been provided.
(The actual distance to the defendants' offices was not a premise of the decision, and no specific distance was found.)
Original article: https://lnkd.in/gM7SV-9B
Related articles
Updates and corrections
Substantive corrections and additions are recorded separately from classification, related links and display changes.
October 1, 2026: First publication of the author's original LinkedIn text on this website. Article type, categories, topic tags, sources and consultation navigation added.
2026-10-01 | Classification: updated issue tags and displayed issues to match the article; jurisdiction categories and original text retained.
2026-10-01 | Display maintenance: added case references stated in the original or language-alternate metadata; not a revalidation of legal analysis.
2026-10-01 | Name notation: replaced verified Japanese-script personal names with Roman-letter forms in this English article and its navigation. Legal analysis and original publication date unchanged.
