2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

[Evidence 1-1, 2, 2, 1-1 through 5, 1-5, 1-1, 1-2, 1-2, 1-2, 1

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of eyeglass shops, and from June 1, 1990 to around 43-5 of the Sincheon-gu, Sincheon-gu, Gyeonggi-do, the Plaintiff is operating an Ansan police officer with the trade name of "Seocheon-gu".

B. On January 13, 1999, the Defendant issued the instant disposition on the ground that the Plaintiff posted an advertisement containing the phrase “special discount for military personnel and students” on the outside of bus vehicles to mislead consumers into the fact, and that it made an exaggerated advertisement that leads consumers to a normal judgment, by applying Articles 24(1)2 and 14(1) of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act (hereinafter “Act”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

Article 14(1) of the Act provides that "Exemplary shops shall not make a false or exaggerated advertisement concerning their relevant services"; Article 14(3) provides that "the scope of advertisements related to eyeglass shops and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare;" Article 17 subparag. 1 and 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act so delegated shall provide that "any advertisement (No. 1) that may mislead consumers, even if a part of the fact is made, may lead consumers to a normal judgment in relation to the preparation or sale of drugs with knowledge (No. 7)"; Articles 24(1)2 and 25 of the Act; Article 4 [Attachment Table] of the Regulations on Administrative Measures related to Medical Services; Article 4 [Attachment Table] provides that when founders of eyeglass shops make a false or exaggerated advertisement in violation of the provisions of Article 14(1)(5) of the Act, they shall take administrative dispositions to suspend their business operations for January.

B. Facts of recognition

[Adoption Evidence: Evidence No. 3-2, Evidence No. 4-2, Evidence No. 5-1, Evidence No. 6-1, 2-2, Evidence No. 1-1 through 5, previous purport of oral argument]

(1) From around November 1995, the Plaintiff entered into an advertising agency contract with the Korean Twitman (former Seoul Newspaper company) and attached an advertisement to the outside of nine vehicles of urban bus operating in neighboring areas by November 13, 1998 (one of them up to the end of December of the same year), which is the expiration date of the contract, and the said advertisement contains the phrase “special discount for soldiers and students” in addition to informing the location, telephone number, handled items, etc. of the Plaintiff’s eyeglass shop.

(2) The Plaintiff indicated the consumer price for each product displayed on the store by using a bridge or the front part of the bridge. From the commencement of the above advertisement, the Plaintiff sold the product at a price (based on consumer price) discounted by 10 to 20% compared to the sale of the same product to the general consumers if the customer is a soldier or student.

(c) Markets:

Where eyeglass shops sell all products or specific products at a discount without objective standards for their prices, they may constitute an exaggerated advertisement because consumers are likely to mislead or prevent normal judgment as to their selling prices. However, it is reasonable to view that an advertisement with a particular status only is intended to reduce a certain ratio based on the selling price to ordinary consumers, and it does not constitute an exaggerated advertisement, barring special circumstances, such as where general consumers who actually form the basis for discount did not indicate the selling price in products or selling products at a very low discount rate compared to general consumers (a separate issue is that it can be viewed as false advertisements because it did not sell products at discount according to the contents of the advertisement).

In this case, since the plaintiff clearly identified the subject of discount in the advertisement as a student or a soldier, and it is recognized that the general consumer's price was indicated daily for each product displayed in the store and that the product was sold at a price below 10 to 20% on the basis of its price in the case of military personnel and students like the contents of the advertisement, it seems that there was a concern for consumers to misunderstand the fact through the above advertisement, or to take a normal judgment in relation to the preparation and sale of the aware, and thus, the disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff made an exaggerated advertisement is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges White-lele (Presiding Judge)