2...

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells red ginseng products.

B. On June 15, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition to impose a penalty surcharge of KRW 110,100,000 in lieu of one month of business suspension pursuant to Articles 75(1)2, 13(1), and 82 of the Food Sanitation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the Plaintiff’s Internet homepage and subway on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff placed an advertisement “in the instant advertisement” on the Internet homepage and subway with the effect that it is likely to have efficacy or efficacy in the prevention and treatment of diseases or to confuse the Plaintiff as medicine or health functional foods” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 2, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) as shown in the Attachment of the relevant statutes;

B. Article 13(1) of the Food Sanitation Act provides that "no person shall place any false, exaggerated, or negative labelling with respect to the name, manufacturing method, quality and nutrition labelling, genetically modified foods, etc. of foods, etc., and the indication of food traceability, which falls under any of the following subparagraphs, and shall not place any exaggerated or exaggerated packaging in the packaging. The same shall also apply to the nutritional value, raw materials, ingredients and usage of foods or food additives." Article 13(1)1 of the same Act provides that "an indication or advertisement that is likely to have the efficacy or effect in the prevention and treatment of diseases, or to mislead or confuse them as medicine or health functional foods."

However, in interpreting the meaning of the above provision, the above provision cannot be seen as prohibiting all labeling and advertising about the pharmacological efficacy of food, and such contents.