1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts recognized;

A. The Plaintiff’s status is a corporation that engages in the marriage brokerage business, etc. for its business purposes, and constitutes a business entity under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (hereinafter “Indication and Advertising Act”).

B. (1) On November 2010 to March 2013, the Plaintiff placed an advertisement on the Plaintiff’s number of its members on its website, etc., and did not state any grounds for the Plaintiff’s advertising act, etc., stating that “the number of its members was tensiond by the Defendant’s submission of evidentiary materials with respect to the number of its members.”

(2) On April 18, 2012 to October 25, 2013, the Plaintiff advertised the Plaintiff’s market share through its website, etc. that “63.2% (the sales revenue of 2010 between major four enterprises) of the Plaintiff’s market share” (hereinafter “instant advertisement”). The Plaintiff indicated its source as “the general figure of the major marriage information company’s marriage information company’s present status on March 29, 2012” or “the standard of sales of 2012 Defendant and 2012 major four companies.”

(3) On March 29, 2012, the Defendant decided to issue a corrective order to Drable Information Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Drable Information”) with respect to the marriage brokerage company (hereinafter “Drable Information”), and the written resolution includes the following table (hereinafter “instant report”).

C. On February 6, 2014, the Defendant issued an order to take corrective measures against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Act on Labeling and Advertising, on the ground that “(i) advertisements of this case constitute advertisements with false or exaggerated advertisements and unfair comparisons, and thus violate Article 3(1)1 and 3 of the Act on Labeling and Advertising,” and (ii) advertisements of this case fall under false or exaggerated advertisements, and thus violates Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Labeling and Advertising, on the grounds that the Defendant’s disposition orders the Plaintiff to take corrective measures pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Act

hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case"

(i) [No dispute over grounds for recognition, A, Nos. 2, 6, and .