1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are both companies with the main business purpose of mutual aid operations.

B. The Defendants’ respective websites (www.borma joint and several pages, www.boramlima.com, www.borampr.com), funeral cars, funeral car, company company’s camba shopping website (www.cj.com)’s product description column, Defendant’s home shopping commercials of camba shopping, Internet Blogs, etc. include “1”, “Korea’s first top aid”, and “one business level.”

C. The Plaintiff is the Defendants’ above.

Recognizing that expressions used in advertisements, as stated in the same paragraph, constitute “false or exaggerated labeling and advertising” or “unfair comparison and advertisement” prohibited by the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (hereinafter “Indication and Advertising Act”), the Seoul Central District Court applied for provisional disposition of prohibition of advertising as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Kahap2145. On January 16, 2014, the above court rendered a ruling that “the Defendant shall not advertise in broadcast media, such as “the first highest group of the Republic of Korea,” “No. 1,” and “No. 1,” and “No. 1,” respectively, on the website (www.borm.com, www.oram.com, www.orma.com), vehicles, Internet, home shopping, etc. established by the Defendants (hereinafter “instant provisional disposition”).

The Plaintiff filed an application for indirect compulsory performance with the Seoul Central District Court A on November 13, 2014 on the ground that the Defendants did not perform their duties according to the instant provisional disposition order. The said court rendered a decision that “The Defendants would pay to each Plaintiff the amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 2,00,000 per day per violation day to KRW 1,00,00 per day” (www.borgs joint and several, www.acom, www.borglie.com, www.com, www.2.2.2. the Defendants violated their duties under paragraph (1).”