All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the term “false or exaggerated advertisement” as referred to in Article 3(1)1 of the former Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (amended by Act No. 11050, Sept. 15, 2011) means an advertisement that is differently from the fact, or excessively unfasible, and thus, is likely to deceive or mislead consumers, and thus, is likely to undermine fair trade order. Whether an advertisement is likely to deceive or mislead consumers ought to be objectively determined on the basis of the overall, extreme increase that ordinary consumers with common caution receive the advertisement in question.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment, the lower court, regardless of the Plaintiffs’ apartment acquisition time, clearly expressed in the instant advertisement that “the instant apartment is subject to tax reduction or exemption benefits pursuant to the economic revitalization measures and the instant ordinance,” which clearly shows that “the instant apartment is subject to tax reduction or exemption benefits pursuant to the economic revitalization measures on February 11, 2009 by the Government,” and that “the instant apartment is subject to tax reduction or exemption benefits pursuant to the economic revitalization measures on February 11, 2009,” and that the instant apartment is subject to tax reduction or exemption benefits, such as: (a) there was no relevance between the scheduled time of occupancy and the benefits from tax reduction or exemption, such as that the scheduled time of occupancy of the apartment is excluded from the subject matter of the economic revitalization measures on June 30, 2010; and (b) the economic reduction or exemption measures are applied to the instant apartment is determined based on the overall economic increase of the government’s benefits.”