[시정명령처분취소등][공1998.5.1.(57),1211]
[1] Whether an advertisement of a milk processing company using the word "mull oil" constitutes unfair trade practices as "an act that is likely to mislead consumers by advertising a fact with an exaggerated contents about the goods of the competitor" (affirmative)
[2] Whether the meaning of the name and the meaning of the oil in the case involving the advertisement of the same kind and the meaning of the oil should be determined based on the consumer's common perception (affirmative)
[3] Whether Article 9 of the Fair Trade Commission’s notice on the category of and criteria for unfair trade practices is invalid beyond the limits of delegation legislation (negative)
[1] The advertisement of the milk processing company using the word "mull oil" is an act that is likely to mislead consumers by advertising the fact with an exaggerated contents about the goods of the competitor, and constitutes an act that is likely to hamper fair trade in the milk processing industry.
[2] In the case of the advertisement strike of the oil, the meaning of the oil and the meaning of the oil should be determined on the basis of the consumer's common perception, not from a professional and medical point of view.
[3] Article 9 of the Fair Trade Commission’s notice of the category of and criteria for unfair trade practices shall not be deemed null and void beyond the limits of delegation legislation.
[1] Article 23 subparagraph 6 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Articles 24 and 24-2 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act / [2] Article 23 subparagraph 6 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, Articles 24 and 24-2 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act / [3] Article 9
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 95Gu35274 delivered on February 27, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, although it is possible to combine crude milk with 100 marine, which is collected by 100,000, such as 100 marines, which are collected from 100, but this is not only a simple straw, which is known to the general consumers, but also a mere string, which is likely to cause such marse to the clinical milk processing plant, and it is likely that such marse would actually be mixed with milk and other products. However, even if it is mixed with crude milk, it is likely that the 10-mare will die and be able to mislead consumers into the above 9-marse processing industry, and that it would not interfere with the fair advertising of the Plaintiff Company, even if it is likely that it would interfere with the above 1-marse processing business by using the 1-mare marse marse to the 9-mare marse marse.
In light of the relevant statutes and records, the fact-finding and determination by the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of legal principles as to the Fair Trade Act and the Food Sanitation Act, misunderstanding of reasons for judgment, inconsistency and inconsistency with the reasoning of judgment, incomplete deliberation, presentation of the burden of proof, and incomplete deliberation, etc. In this case, it is not necessary to determine the meaning and meaning of the name in this case based on the consumer's common perception from a professional and medical point of view as argued by the plaintiff, nor should it be determined from a professional and medical point of view. Article 9 of the Notice of Unfair Trade Practices and Criteria by the Fair Trade Commission
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 Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)