애스크로AIPublic Preview
← 학술논문 검색
학술논문산업재산권2012.08 발행KCI 피인용 2

지식재산권 관련 부당이득 분쟁에 대한 쟁점별 고찰

The research on the unjust enrichment issues in the intellectual property cases

조경희(국회도서관 법률자료조사관); 박규용(제주대학교)

38호, 55~90쪽

초록

There is no provision about the unjust enrichment in the intellectual property law. But the unjust enrichment principles in the Civil Law are also applicable to the intellectual property cases for balancing the unfairs in the property changes, when the intellectual property right is deemed as a person's property and when the person enriched gets any profit and it causes any damage to the intellectual property owner. This paper discusses the issues of the unjust enrichment on the intellectual property rights with the Civil Law principles. In other words, for the beginning it illustrates the principles of the Civil Law, and then it researches how the principles be applied to the intellectual property rights cases. Firstly, it considers the unjust enrichment with the classification(the giving unjust enrichment and the infringing unjust enrichment), and the usefulness of that. The usefulness is that there is no need to distinguish good or bad faith of the person enriched because the repayment amount under the giving unjust enrichment is already decided by its expressed legal relationship. While the repayment amount under the infringing unjust enrichment is different from the enriched person's good or bad faith. Secondly, it considers the burden proof of no legal ground with the classification again. There is no argument under the giving unjust enrichment that the plaintiff has the burden of proof. While there are arguments under the infringing unjust enrichment on the claims for reimbursement. The both reach a conclusion that the person enriched has the burden of proof. However, it inclines to the opinion that the no legal ground is deemed as the defendant counter-argument at the actual cases. Thirdly, with regard to the illustration problems between the article 201 and the article 748 about the repayment amount, it analyzes the legal nature of the fruits acquirement rights of a good faith person, the relationship between the fruits acquirement rights and the remaining enrichment. The result is that, when the invalid patentee deemed the registered patent as his rights and got the royalty through the license contract, the legal principles of fruits acquirement rights should be applied to such royalty. Fourthly, it analyzes the relationship between the tort claims for the damages and the unjust enrichment claims for the repayments. The related cases are almost about the infringing unjust enrichment. And the two claims coincide when the cases are on the proof of the deliberation(or the mistake) or on the extinctive prescription. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to distinguish the two claim's repayment because the claims for the unjust enrichment and the claims of tort are the same. Finally, in the conclusion of this paper, it gets the intellectual property cases into shape with the unjust enrichment principles of the Civil Law.

Abstract

There is no provision about the unjust enrichment in the intellectual property law. But the unjust enrichment principles in the Civil Law are also applicable to the intellectual property cases for balancing the unfairs in the property changes, when the intellectual property right is deemed as a person's property and when the person enriched gets any profit and it causes any damage to the intellectual property owner. This paper discusses the issues of the unjust enrichment on the intellectual property rights with the Civil Law principles. In other words, for the beginning it illustrates the principles of the Civil Law, and then it researches how the principles be applied to the intellectual property rights cases. Firstly, it considers the unjust enrichment with the classification(the giving unjust enrichment and the infringing unjust enrichment), and the usefulness of that. The usefulness is that there is no need to distinguish good or bad faith of the person enriched because the repayment amount under the giving unjust enrichment is already decided by its expressed legal relationship. While the repayment amount under the infringing unjust enrichment is different from the enriched person's good or bad faith. Secondly, it considers the burden proof of no legal ground with the classification again. There is no argument under the giving unjust enrichment that the plaintiff has the burden of proof. While there are arguments under the infringing unjust enrichment on the claims for reimbursement. The both reach a conclusion that the person enriched has the burden of proof. However, it inclines to the opinion that the no legal ground is deemed as the defendant counter-argument at the actual cases. Thirdly, with regard to the illustration problems between the article 201 and the article 748 about the repayment amount, it analyzes the legal nature of the fruits acquirement rights of a good faith person, the relationship between the fruits acquirement rights and the remaining enrichment. The result is that, when the invalid patentee deemed the registered patent as his rights and got the royalty through the license contract, the legal principles of fruits acquirement rights should be applied to such royalty. Fourthly, it analyzes the relationship between the tort claims for the damages and the unjust enrichment claims for the repayments. The related cases are almost about the infringing unjust enrichment. And the two claims coincide when the cases are on the proof of the deliberation(or the mistake) or on the extinctive prescription. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to distinguish the two claim's repayment because the claims for the unjust enrichment and the claims of tort are the same. Finally, in the conclusion of this paper, it gets the intellectual property cases into shape with the unjust enrichment principles of the Civil Law.

발행기관:
한국지식재산학회
분류:
법학

AI 법률 상담

이 논문의 주제에 대해 더 알고 싶으신가요?

460만+ 법률 자료에서 관련 판례·법령·해석례를 찾아 답변합니다

AI 상담 시작
지식재산권 관련 부당이득 분쟁에 대한 쟁점별 고찰 | 산업재산권 2012 | AskLaw | 애스크로 AI