A. In general, the relevant legal principles are somewhat exaggerationd in advertising or advertising of goods, and accompanying falseness is not sufficient to the extent possible in light of the general commercial practice and the good faith principle. However, in a case where specific facts on important matters in trading are falsely notified in a manner to the extent that they can be criticized in light of the transactional duty in good faith, it constitutes deception in fraud exceeding the limits of exaggeration and false advertisements.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5789, Feb. 5, 2002).

Facts of recognition

In full view of the purport (including the fact that there is no dispute) of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6 and 8, defendant Eul engaged in cargo brokerage business was placed on the Internet through Eul upon request of the defendant Eul who operates D Co., Ltd. for the purpose of freight forwarding business, mediation business, and special franchise manufacturing business, etc., 27.5 tons chip from 27.5 tons East-U.S. to Cheongju-U.S. to Cheongju-U.S. to collect waste recycled products, and the plaintiff reported the above Internet advertisement around August 2014 to the defendants, and it was 00 million won from 90,000 won per month to 00,000 won per month to 00,000 won per month to 00,000 won to 00,000 won to 00,000 won to 00,000 won to 0,000 won to 18,000,000 won to 1,00.