계약법의 부당이득(법)에 대한 우월성: 소위 ‘치킨광고아이디어’ 사건에서 애로우의 정보의 역설(Arrow’s Information Paradox)의 법적 구제법리에 대한 영향 = 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

다국어 초록 (Multilingual 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.