Background
Where an instructor breaches a non-competition covenant and starts teaching at a nearby rival academy, obtaining damages through proceedings on the merits takes a long time — and in the meantime the academy's losses, including departing students, keep mounting. One academy in exactly that position came to Changchun.
The Issue — Can It Be Stopped "Immediately," Without Waiting for the Merits?
To stop the harm, the instructor's competing classes must be halted before judgment on the merits. The tool for that is a non-competition injunction — a provisional injunction fixing a temporary position in a disputed legal relationship (Civil Execution Act art. 300(2)) — which requires a prima facie showing of both ① the right to be preserved (the right to enforce the non-competition covenant) and ② the need for preservation (that waiting for the merits would cause loss difficult to remedy).
How Changchun Helped
Changchun (attorneys Jaesun Yoon and Donghwan Shin) moved quickly for a non-competition injunction, making a prima facie showing that ① the covenant served the academy's protectable interests and was valid in its duration, geographic scope and subject matter; ② the instructor had breached it by teaching the same subject at a nearby rival academy; and ③ leaving this unchecked would continue to expand loss — departing students and more — that monetary compensation alone could not remedy.
Unlike proceedings on the merits, an injunction is a contest over time. The case shows that in non-competition disputes, stopping the conduct immediately by injunction before the loss sets in is the essence of the matter. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case and may differ.)