Testing idea information and achievements under the Unfair Competition Act

1. 01Question

   On the facts of an advertising service contract, when is information containing another's economic idea unfair competition under Article 2(1)(cha) of the Unfair Competition Act, when is a result an achievement made by considerable investment or effort under item (ka), and does item (cha) apply where the idea was provided before 18 July 2018 but the use continued after that date?

2. 02Holding

   Information is idea information under item (cha) where it holds an idea of economic value provided in the course of business dealings, judged concretely and case by case by whether its holder can gain a competitive advantage through its use or would need considerable cost or effort to acquire or develop it, and where the use can be assessed as breaching the trust relationship arising from those dealings. Ideas the recipient already knew or that are widely known in the same industry are excluded by the proviso. Results protected under item (ka) include intangibles and may include new forms of results formerly hard to protect under intellectual property law, judged by their reputation and economic value, the customer-drawing power embodied in them, and their weight and competitiveness in the field, and item (cha) may apply to conduct continuing after its commencement even where the idea was provided earlier.

   Summary of the holding, verbatim

   한편 아이디어 정보 제공이 위 (차)목의 시행일 전에 이루어졌어도 위 (차)목의 부정경쟁행위에 해당하는 행위가 그 시행일 이후에 계속되고 있다면 위 (차)목이 적용될 수 있다.

   Unofficial English translation

   On the other hand, even if the provision of idea information took place before the effective date of item (j) above, item (j) above may be applied where the act falling under the unfair competition act of item (j) above has continued after that effective date.

3. 03Disposition

   Dismissed Stated in the decision

   상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

4. 04Form of the test

   Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision

   거래교섭 또는 거래과정의 구체적인 내용과 성격, 아이디어 정보의 제공이 이루어진 동기와 경위, 아이디어 정보의 제공으로 달성하려는 목적, 아이디어 정보 제공에 대한 정당한 대가의 지급 여부 등을 종합적으로 고려하여

   Unofficial English translation

   by comprehensively considering the specific content and nature of the transaction negotiations or the transaction process, the motive and circumstances under which the idea information was provided, the purpose sought to be achieved by the provision of the idea information, whether payment of a legitimate consideration for the provision of idea information was made, etc.

5. 05Factors

   • 아이디어 정보의 보유자가 정보의 사용을 통해 경쟁자에 대하여 경쟁상의 이익을 얻을 수 있거나 또는 정보의 취득이나 개발을 위해 상당한 비용이나 노력이 필요한 경우인지
   • 다만 아이디어를 제공받은 자가 제공받을 당시 이미 알고 있었거나 동종 업계에서 널리 알려진 아이디어는 위 (차)목의 보호대상에서 제외된다[위 (차)목 단서]
   • 결과물이 갖게 된 명성이나 경제적 가치, 결과물에 화체된 고객흡인력, 해당 사업 분야에서 결과물이 차지하는 비중과 경쟁력 등을 종합적으로 고려해야 한다
   • 성과 등을 무단으로 사용함으로써 침해된 경제적 이익이 누구나 자유롭게 이용할 수 있는 이른바 공공영역(, public domain)에 속하지 않는다고 평가할 수 있어야 한다
   • 권리자가 주장하는 성과 등이 포함된 산업분야의 상거래 관행이나 경쟁질서의 내용과 그 내용이 공정한지

   Unofficial English translation

   • Whether the holder of idea information may obtain a competitive advantage over a competitor through the use of the information, or whether substantial cost or effort is required to acquire or develop the information

   • However, ideas that the recipient of the idea already knew at the time of receipt or that are widely known in the same industry are excluded from the protection of item (j) above [proviso to item (j) above]

   • The reputation or economic value that the resulting work has acquired, the customer appeal embodied in the resulting work, the share and competitiveness occupied by the resulting work in the relevant business field, etc. must be comprehensively considered

   • It must be possible to assess that the economic interest infringed by the unauthorized use of the achievements, etc. does not belong to the so-called public domain (, public domain) that anyone may freely use

   • The trade practices and the content of the competitive order in the industry field encompassing the achievements, etc. claimed by the right holder, and whether that content is fair

6. 06Relation to precedent

   Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision

   대법원 2020. 3. 26. 선고 2016다276467 판결(공2020상, 809), 대법원 2020. 3. 26.자 2019마6525 결정(공2020상, 832)

   Unofficial English translation

   Supreme Court Decision 2016Da276467 decided March 26, 2020 (Gong 2020 Sang, 809), Supreme Court DECISION 2019Ma6525 dated March 26, 2020 (Gong 2020 Sang, 832)

   Decisions referred to

   [2] 대법원 2020. 3. 26. 선고 2016다276467 판결(공2020상, 809), 대법원 2020. 3. 26.자 2019마6525 결정(공2020상, 832)

7. 07Burden of proof

   Not addressed Not in the decision

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   Where the same information satisfies both item (cha) and item (ka), on which ground should the court decide, and how should one remedy be calculated?

   A later decision applying for the first time the elements of item (cha), enacted by Act No. 15580 of 17 April 2018 and commenced on 18 July 2018, to a concrete set of facts would show how the trust relationship test works in practice. Any amendment to item (cha), item (ka) or Article 14-2(5) of the Unfair Competition Act also calls for this entry to be read again.

Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.

Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.