1. On April 1, 2010, the Defendant issued a corrective order, publication order, as set out in the separate sheet No. 2010-039, with respect to the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The status of the plaintiff et al. is that the plaintiff, etc. is engaged in the business of manufacturing glass containers, such as glass bottles and glass food containers (hereinafter referred to as "fluorries"), and is a business operator under subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the former Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (amended by Act No. 11050, Sep. 15, 201; hereinafter referred to as the "former Act"), and the defendant joining the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "participating, etc.") is the defendant and the defendant are engaged in the business of manufacturing plastic goods, such as plastic food containers (hereinafter referred to as "plastic food").

In order to keep food in each of the materials and characteristics of the glass flag and plastic food or plastic food, there are mutual competition as a container manufactured with plastics or synthetic resin, so as to keep food.

There has not been an official standard for the type and classification criteria of glass type. In general, the term "satise glass" means the glass with a strong strength, shock strength, high heat resistance, and high stability, which can be mistakenly damaged even though it is acutely higher, and the term "heat glass" means the glass with a strong shockness that is not rupture, even though it is acutely higher.

The raw materials of plastic organs are classified into polypropye, polychylene, polyethylene, polyethylenethalate, etc., and among them, the raw materials used for plastic food which are manufactured and sold by the intervenor by attaching the trade name of "snat" is polychate.

On April 1, 2010, the Defendant’s disposition issued a resolution with respect to the Plaintiff as indicated below by Article 2010-039, and the patent-related advertisements of this case as indicated below constitute false or exaggerated advertisements under Article 3(1)1 of the former Labeling and Advertising Act, and the advertisement related to the environment classmon of this case constitutes a malicious advertisement under Article 3(1)4 of the same Act.