1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows, except for the 10th sentence of the first instance court's judgment, the 10th sentence to the 3th sentence of the first instance court's judgment, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment. Thus, the court's explanation as to this case is accepted by the main text of Article 4

2. On the 10th of the first instance judgment, the following shall be changed from the 10th of the first instance judgment to the 3th of the said judgment.

[2] Determination A) Article 3(1)1 of the former Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (amended by Act No. 11050, Sep. 15, 2011) refers to an advertisement that is differently from the fact or excessively unfasible to the fact and is likely to deceive or mislead consumers, and thus likely to undermine fair trade order. Whether it is likely to deceive or mislead consumers, or cause consumers to mislead consumers, should be objectively determined based on the overall and extreme increase that ordinary consumers receive the pertinent advertisement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da18186, 2014Da1818193, Sept. 15, 201). However, considering all the following circumstances, considering the details and circumstances of the instant report, including the promotion of the advertisement up to the location of the instant commercial building by Defendant C’s online space development until the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the details and circumstances of the instant report by the Plaintiffs, the details of the relevant advertisement’ overall contents of the report and its surrounding contents, etc.

Even if Defendant C’s advertisement of selling the instant commercial buildings is different from the fact or excessively unrefised, it is difficult to view that it constitutes an advertisement that might undermine fair trade order by deceiving or misleading consumers.

Supreme Court on March 10, 2016