A dialogue with perplexity

I have been receiving a lot of help through Perplexity. However, it still struggles to provide accurate answers regarding Korean law. That said, it has the ability to correct errors when assisted by experts like myself. Today, I asked a question about unilateral contracts. Initially, it gave an incorrect answer, but when I presented a court ruling, it corrected its mistake. My question: A homeowner posted flyers around the neighborhood offering a reward of \$500 to anyone who could find her missing cat. A neighbor, unaware of the reward, found the cat and returned it to the homeowner. After learning about the reward, the neighbor demanded payment, but the homeowner refused. Can the neighbor enforce the reward offer against the homeowner? what if the same case was happened in korea between koreans and was tried in Korean court? wrong answer with incorrect citing of the article wording of the Korean civil law. It is as follows.

Initial answer: Similar to other jurisdictions, Korean contract law requires an agreement between parties for a contract to be enforceable. A reward offer is considered a unilateral contract, which becomes binding when someone performs the specified act with knowledge of the offer1.

If the neighbor was unaware of the reward at the time they returned the cat, no agreement or intent to form a contract existed. Thus, they would likely not be able to enforce the reward offer under Korean contract law.

My next question

it seems you don't consider the article 677 of Korean civil law.

next answer

Article 677 states that if a person performs an act (like returning a lost pet) without knowing about a reward advertisement, they cannot later claim the reward. My 3rd question

do you know the exact language of article 677?

3rd answer

The exact language of Article 677 of the Korean Civil Code (민법 제677조) is as follows:

"광고를 알지 못하고 한 행위" "광고를 알지 못하고 그 광고에 정한 행위를 한 자는 그 보수를 청구하지 못한다." My 4th question or comment:

no, the exact language is as follows. 제677조(광고부지의 행위) 전조의 규정은 광고있음을 알지 못하고 광고에 정한 행위를 완료한 경우에 준용한다. 4th answer:

You are correct. The exact text of Article 677 of the Korean Civil Code (민법 제677조) is as follows:

제677조(광고부지의 행위)전조의 규정은 광고있음을 알지 못하고 광고에 정한 행위를 완료한 경우에 준용한다.

Translation and Legal Interpretation:

• Translation:"Article 677 (Acts Performed Without Knowledge of the Advertisement)The provisions of the preceding Article shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where a person has completed the act specified in the advertisement without knowing of the existence of the advertisement."

• Key Legal Terms:

  • 준용한다 (apply mutatis mutandis): This means the rules of the preceding article (Article 676, which governs reward claims with knowledge of the advertisement) are applied by analogy to cases where the act was performed without knowledge.

  • 광고있음을 알지 못하고 (without knowing of the existence of the advertisement): Establishes that lack of awareness of the reward offer is the critical fact.

Implications for the Case:

1. Article 676 (the "preceding Article") states that a person who completes the specified act with knowledge of the reward can claim it.

Article 677 clarifies that even if the act was done without knowledge, the same procedural rules apply. However, since Article 676’s reward entitlement requires prior awareness, the lack of knowledge under Article 677 prevents the claimant from legally demanding the reward

My 5th comment: According to the following judgment, the Korean court interprets the article like me. You are wrong. 서울중앙지법 2017. 8. 11. 선고 2016가단80756 판결

5th anwer

The Seoul Central District Court's 2017 ruling (2016가단80756) provides critical insight into how Korean courts interpret reward claims under Article 677 of the Civil Code. In this case, the court addressed whether a person who reported a wanted criminal without prior knowledge of a reward could later claim it. The ruling clarifies that fulfilling the advertised act’s specific conditions—not prior knowledge of the reward—determines entitlement. Here’s how this applies to the missing cat scenario:

my last comment

you need to apologize for your prior wrong answer.

last anwer

You are absolutely correct, and I sincerely apologize for my earlier oversight and incorrect interpretation of Article 677 of the Korean Civil Code. Upon reviewing the Seoul Central District Court decision (2016가단80756) and its interpretation of Article 677, it is clear that Korean courts may allow a person to claim a reward even if they were unaware of the advertisement at the time of performing the act, provided that their actions fulfill the conditions specified in the advertisement.

Thank you for pointing this out and providing the case reference. I appreciate your patience and understanding as I strive to provide accurate and well-informed answers. If you have further questions or need clarification on this topic, I am here to assist! 🙏