▲ Jinhaksa
The Supreme Court has overturned an appellate court ruling that recognized college admissions information company Jinhaksa's unauthorized use of the performance of startup Tandem in a legal battle over the development of a college review service.
The ruling emphasizes that the misappropriation of another party's performance must be proven by the party claiming it.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Lee Sook-yeon) recently overturned part of the lower court's ruling in a lawsuit filed by Jinhaksa seeking confirmation of the non-existence of debt, as well as a counter-suit filed by Tandem seeking an injunction against unfair competition and damages, and sent the case back to the Seoul High Court.
Tandem, a startup operating the college review service AdCampus, signed a business cooperation agreement with Jinhaksa in 2018 regarding the development of a college review service.
However, the following year, Jinhaksa launched its own college review service, Campus Review, without notifying Tandem.
In 2020, Tandem reported Jinhaksa to the Korean Intellectual Property Office for unfair competition, claiming that Jinhaksa had unauthorizedly used its review data and API (Application Programming Interface) to develop a similar service.
Review data refers to personal experiences left by enrolled college students regarding universities and departments, while an API is an interface that allows information stored on Tandem's server to be directly queried from Jinhaksa's server.
In 2021, the Korean Intellectual Property Office acknowledged Jinhaksa's act of unfair competition regarding the unauthorized use of review data and recommended the payment of licensing fees.
Refusing to comply, Jinhaksa filed a lawsuit against Tandem seeking confirmation of the non-existence of debt, prompting Tandem to file a counter-suit demanding an injunction against unfair competition and damages.
The first trial dismissed all of Tandem's counter-claims and ruled that no debt existed for Jinhaksa.
On the other hand, the second trial ruled that Jinhaksa unauthorizedly used Tandem's review data and API, ordering Jinhaksa to pay 20 million won in damages to Tandem.
The Supreme Court overturned the appellate court's decision once again.
The Supreme Court determined that Tandem's review data falls under the category of "performances created through substantial investment or effort" under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
However, it judged that Tandem's API did not constitute a protected performance, noting that it was already widely known in the college review service sector prior to Tandem's service launch and amounted to no more than customary elements typically possessed by APIs performing similar functions.
The Supreme Court pointed out that Tandem failed to submit any evidence showing that even a single piece of review data among its vast collection was used in the service developed by Jinhaksa.
In contrast, Jinhaksa submitted relevant evidence showing that it directly collected review data through four promotional events after launching its service and incurred expenses for prizes.
The Supreme Court noted that there is a strong possibility Jinhaksa already possessed its own know-how regarding technology and data processing methods, given that it had provided review services for internet lectures and other fields even before collaborating with Tandem.
Reaffirming established legal principles, the Supreme Court stated that under the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the burden of proving whether another party has unauthorizedly used one's performance lies with the party asserting it.
(Photo: Screenshot of Jinhaksa website, Yonhap News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.