The Journal of Intellectual Property (J Intellect Property; JIP)

KCI Indexed
OPEN ACCESS, PEER REVIEWED

pISSN 1975-5945
eISSN 2733-8487

The Superiority of the Law of Contract over the Unjust Enrichment in the ‘Chicken Advertisement Case’: the Effect of Arrow’s Information Paradox on the Law of Remedy

CONTENTS

Research article

Citation: Na J. 2024. The Superiority of the Law of Contract over the Unjust Enrichment in the ‘Chicken Advertisement Case’: the Effect of Arrow’s Information Paradox on the Law of Remedy. The Journal of Intellectual Property 19(2), 27-44.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34122/jip.2024.19.2.2

The Journal of Intellectual Property, 2024 June, 19(2): 27-44. 

Received on 30 January 2024, Revised on 18 February 2024, Accepted on 29 May 2024, Published on 30 June 2024.

The Superiority of the Law of Contract over the Unjust Enrichment in the ‘Chicken Advertisement Case’: the Effect of Arrow’s Information Paradox on the Law of Remedy

Jongkhab Na

Professor, Yonsei University School of Law, Republic of Korea

*Corresponding Author: Jongkhab Na (jkn@yonsei.ac.kr)

Abstract

In the ‘Chicken Advertisement Idea’ case of the Supreme Court of Korea, although a advertisement contract was valid, the Courts admitted the applicability of the (Cha)Mok unfair competition(hereinafter ‘(Cha)’) of the Unfair Competition Act. However, the (Cha) governs unfair acts at the transaction proceeding stage before a valid contract is made. The (Cha) protects idea/information transactions from Arrow’s Information Paradox which shows the uncertainty of idea/information transactions. After transactions and contracts are made, there is no necessary of (Cha) protection of the transactions because contracts govern the transactions.

In the ‘Chicken Advertising Idea’ case, an advertising service contract was made and implemented, but a breach of contract occurred. Therefore, an unfair act under the (Cha) cannot be recognized, because the unfair act under the (Cha) is a legal remedy under unfair enrichment law based on equity, and contract law has priority over remedies based on equity. Thus, there is no room for equity to interfere when a contract exists and governs the transactions.

In a case where a valid contract exists and a matter of default occurs, the court’s decisions admitting the (Cha) unfair competition are fault decisions which do not understand the priority of the law of contract and unjust enrichment, an equity jurisprudence.

Keywords

(cha)mok, Unfair Competition, Idea, equity, contract, Arrow’s Information Paradox, unjust enrichment

Funding

The author received manuscript fees for this article from Korea Institute of Intellectual Property.

Conflicts of interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.