2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The plaintiff is a legal person established for the purpose of the production and sales business of pyiopicing business, and for the purpose of the manufacture and sales business of pyiopicing beverages, and *** * Professor Gapic flus' manufacturing and marketing of pyiopics at source points.

B. On December 28, 2006, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to make a website of the Plaintiff Company *, and posted comments such as the Plaintiff’s website notice on the start page * *, and the “Symanty’s notice on the website” on the lower part of the Qua New.

C. On July 27, 2007, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of KRW 3,600,000 on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff’s website, where the Plaintiff’s posting of the above writing constitutes either labeling or advertising that may lead to confusion with the pharmaceutical products with respect to food or raw materials thereof, in violation of Article 11(1) of the Food Sanitation Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Each of the above notices is merely a report fee for newspapers, broadcasting, etc., and a result of the study, as widely known as to the pyo, and thus, it is not likely that the pyo, which is a food, may cause confusion as medicine. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

As seen in the attached law, Article 11(1) of the Food Sanitation Act provides that "in labels of food and food additives, it shall not make any indication or advertisement that may cause confusion with medicine." The same shall also apply to the nutritional value, raw materials, ingredients, and uses of food and food additives, and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that "an act falling under false indication or exaggerated advertisement under Article 11 of the Act shall be listed, and it shall be subject to such act" in subparagraph 2 of the same Article.

However, it cannot be deemed that the foregoing provision prohibits all labeling and advertising of the pharmacological efficacy of food. Even if labeling and advertising of such contents are identical to advertising and advertising in the case of marking that they are incidental to food or appear as a result of nutrition within the essential limit of the efficacy of food. Thus, the above provision should be interpreted as restricting only only the labeling and advertising that directly and mainly aims at treating, preventing, etc. a specific disease, and that regulate only the labeling and advertising that cause consumers to confuse and mislead consumers as medicine, and what labeling and advertising goes beyond one limit as food advertising, and the legal application institution should specifically determine the effects of such labeling and advertising (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do381, Sept. 6, 2007).

The contents of the articles published on the Plaintiff’s website concerning the Plaintiff’s product itself that the Plaintiff manufactured and sold are the content of NIO, and the method of posting is also posted on the lower page at the time of opening one of several sub-Medi Newcom, which seems to have been seen as having been in fact posted on the Plaintiff’s website without any increase or decrease in the overall newspapers or broadcasts, or (the contents of the articles cited are actually visible; hereinafter the contents of the articles cited) disclosing the source as they are without any increase or decrease in the overall newspapers or broadcasts, and do not seem to have been introduced in the form of advertising the Plaintiff’s product. Also, examining the posted articles as a whole, it is difficult to view that it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff directly sells food products for the purpose of preventing the Plaintiff from being exposed to the food nutrition of the Plaintiff itself, such as the Internet, backs, etc., as the contents that can easily be exposed to the Plaintiff’s product, which could have been directly used for the purpose of preventing the Plaintiff’s treatment and sale of the products.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful since it misleads the meaning of "an indication or advertisement that is likely to confuse with a drug" prohibited by Article 11 (1) of the Act.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified.