부정경쟁방지법 제15조의 해석에 대한 연구

Article 15 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act was introduced in 1961 when the Act was enacted in Korea, modelled on Article 6 of Japan's former Unfair Competition Prevention Act. Its purpose was to align the Unfair Competition Prevention Act with the existing industrial property rights framework, respecting registered rights while permitting the application of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act in cases of rights abuse, thus setting limits on the exercise of industrial property rights. In Japan, criticism based on the legislative purposes of the Trademark Act and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, as well as the legislative purpose of Article 6 of the former act, was accepted, leading to the abolition of Article 6 of the former Act in 1993. In Korea, during the approximately two-year preparation of the 1986 amendment, numerous draft amendments were prepared, resulting in significant changes to the provisions. The initial draft amendment prepared by the Patent Office from February to August 1985 was based on the structure of Article 6 of Japan's former law, which prioritised industrial property rights subject to registration. Alongside this, it can be observed that the draft codified the principle for adjusting legal interests when conflicts arise between industrial property rights laws and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, in addition to the overlapping application of such laws and the Unfair Competition Prevention Act. This principle aligns with the intent of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, which Japan sought to achieve through the abolition of Article 6 of the former act. During this process, although Article 15 could have served as the foundation for promoting harmonious interpretation among the various intellectual property laws enumerated in the provisions, the relationship with the Fair Trade Act became an increasingly prominent issue as the amendments progressed. Consequently, the final provisions shifted focus to their relationship with other laws, creating a disconnect between the original legislative intent and the wording of the provisions. Among the amendments since 1986, it is worth noting that during the 2013 revision to establish general provisions, the Copyright Act was added to the list of other laws enumerated in Article 15 to clarify its relationship with other legislation. Article 15 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act has been interpreted, through Supreme Court rulings and Constitutional Court decisions, to mean that “even rights protected under other laws such as the Trademark Act may be subject to the Unfair Competition Prevention Act within the scope that does not contravene those laws”. However, due to various limitations inherent in the provision, arguments for its abolition continue to be raised. However, this provision has evolved beyond merely defining the relationship with registration-based laws within past intellectual property legislation to now serve as a clause regulating relationships with various laws, including the Copyright Act. It is necessary to consider that the current supplementary general provision under Article 2(1)(pa) of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act has significantly broadened the scope of intellectual property protection. Furthermore, when Article 15 was amended in 2013, the legislature added the “Copyright Act” as one of the enumerated laws, thereby assigning it the role of eliminating confusion in law enforcement arising from the supplementary general provision. That is to say, it is necessary to clarify the interpretative criteria when the results of applying multiple laws conflict. To this end, rather than abolishing Article 15 of the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, it is necessary to actively re-examine the meaning of this provision and highlight its raison d'être.