[광고행위시정처분취소등][공1999.1.1.(73),52]
The case holding that it does not constitute unfair trade practices, in case where a milk processing company has advertised an advertisement previously posted by competitors upon receiving a corrective order from the Fair Trade Commission.
The case holding that it does not constitute unfair trade practices on the grounds that there is no risk of misunderstanding consumers, in the event that a business entity conducts an advertisement with an advertisement published in accordance with the above corrective order without mentioning about the corrective order issued by the Fair Trade Commission, even though the milk processing company received a corrective order with the business entity as to the trade secret advertisements, and without mention
Article 23 subparag. 6 and Article 24 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Article 9 of the Types of and Criteria for Unfair Trade Practices (Notice of the Fair Trade Commission No. 1995-6)
Pacific Oil Business Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yoon Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Fair Trade Commission (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu37904 delivered on February 27, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant ordered the plaintiff company and the milk processing association to suspend unfair advertisement and to publish facts of violation of the law with regard to the so-called "recogncy" surrounding the plaintiff company and the non-party oil processing association, the non-party oil processing association (hereinafter referred to as the "oil processing association"), and the oil processing association published the facts of violation of the law in accordance with the above corrective order (hereinafter referred to as the "regnancy corrective advertisement"), without any mentioning about the corrective order of the plaintiff company's "the person who was an unfair advertisement with regard to pagncy", which was issued by the Korea Oil processing Association, was an advertisement prior to the above corrective order of the milk processing association (hereinafter referred to as the "the advertisement of this case"). Since the contents of the advertisement of this case are true, it cannot be viewed that the advertisement of this case is likely to mislead or mislead consumers, barring any special circumstance, and that the general consumers with common caution of this case reported the advertisement of this case to the plaintiff company and the oil processing association's association were not aware of the facts.
In light of the records, the court below's decision that the advertisement of this case did not constitute an unfair trade practice is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)