중국 정부의 해외투자 장려정책에 따라 중국은 투자유치와 투자수출의 이중적인 국가가 되었다. 그러나 활발한 국제투자에서 중국의 기업 또는 투자자들은 투자유치국의 은닉한 간접수용의 규정조치 로 인하여 예상치 못한 손해를 많이 입고 있다. 이는 투자자의 재산권과 투자유치국의 정당한 규제권 사이에 적절한 균형점을 찾아 명확한 간접수용 기준을 제시한다면, 예상치 못한 투자분쟁의 발생을 줄여 투자자의 이익을 보호할 수 있다. 따라서 본 논문에서는 중국의 국내법에 간접수용관련 규정뿐 만 아니라 기체결된 BIT상의 간접수용 규정에 대해서도 살펴보고 국제투자중재(ICSID)에 기소된 중국 정부 또는 투자자가 간접수용과 관련된 사례의 특징 및 시사점을 검토하였다. 이러한 분석을 통하여 중국이 간접수용관련 분쟁에 대응하는 특징 및 시사점을 도출하고 이에 대한 해결방안을 제시하였으 며, 이를 토대로 한국 정부가 향후 중국과 투자관련 협정을 체결할 때 간접수용과 관련하여 주의하여 야 할 점과 중국에서 투자하고자 할 한국 기업 또는 투자자가 주의하여야 할 사항에 대해서도 확인하 였다.

The Supreme Court precedent is related to this litigation regarding several important issues. The first issue is on the exact definition of trade secrets acquisition and their use under the Article 18 of the Prevention of Unfair Competition Act. Other pertinent issues are, once an employee appropriates trade secrets or main assets for a rival company, in what case it would be considered as committing occupational breach of trust and what would constitute as onset of the crime.The Supreme Court held that accessing trade secrets within close time frame of the pertaining business activity with intentions to use the confidential business information regarding that activity would be sufficiently deemed as start of the crime. Additionally, in the case of electronic files such as a tub cards holder, the Supreme Court decided that running of the electronic files would be recognized as onset of the crime. These decisions by the Supreme Court are not particularly problematic. On the other hand, since it is more difficult to determine whether a retired or former employee has committed such occupational breach of trust, the issue calls for further discussion. In order to charge a former employee with professional misappropriation, the employee must be “a person who deals with affairs of others.” In such case, if the former employee has signed a contract with the employer to keep trade secret for reasonable time, there are discernable grounds for putting burden on the employee to maintain confidentiality. However, any confidentiality agreement that is either permanent or lacking specific term for time limit can be excessively infringing on the freedom of former employees to choose their occupation. As a result, provided that the former employee does not have a confidentiality agreement, he should not be punished for occupational misappropriation in order to respect constitutional freedom of career choice and to maintain a balanced interpretation. Furthermore, it is likely that the court will interpret an action requiring an employee to keep business information confidential for unreasonably long time many years after expiration of his employment contract as excessively infringing upon fundamental rights of the employee, such as the freedom of career choice. In addition, other related precedents show similar attitudes even when the employee acquires trade secrets by means of his memories. Thus, I strongly believe that the court should be more cautious in this matter in order to guard basic human rights from ambiguous interpretations.