[1] The meaning of "false or exaggerated advertisement" under Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising and the standard for determining whether the advertisement is likely to deceive or mislead consumers

[2] In a case where a consumer evaluates and guarantees the product as good goods on the basis of his/her own experience or recommends the purchase and use of the product, and its contents are accepted as facts available to a general consumer beyond the personal experience of the recommending person, the burden of proving that the content of recommendation and guarantee by the consumer is true

[1] Article 3(1)1 of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising; Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising / [2] Articles 3(1)1 and 5(1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising; Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6965 Decided June 27, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1633), Supreme Court Decision 2007Da59066 Decided July 22, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1627) / [2] Supreme Court Order 2002Ma4109 Decided March 31, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 1064)

Plaintiff (Attorney Myoung-gu et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Fair Trade Commission (Law Firm Busan, Attorneys Lee Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu21442 decided February 10, 201

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 3(1)1 of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (hereinafter “Fair Labeling and Advertising”) and Article 3(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, false or exaggerated advertisements refer to advertisements that are likely to deceive or mislead consumers by advertising differently from facts, or likely to mislead consumers, and that are likely to undermine fair trade order. Whether advertisements are likely to deceive or mislead consumers should be objectively determined based on the total and extreme increase that consumers with common care receive the advertisement (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da59066, Jul. 22, 2010). In addition, according to the provisions of Articles 3(1)1 and 5(1) of the same Act and Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if consumers have experience and experience in labeling and advertising, such as labeling and advertising, and the contents of such recommendation and advertising are generally acceptable for consumers to prove that the contents of such recommendation and advertising are reasonable and reasonable.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff prepared an experience climate with respect to the training machine products sold by the plaintiff from around May 2008 to the plaintiff's homepage (hereinafter "products of this case"), the court below determined that the plaintiff's act of purchasing false information about the product of this case constitutes an act of purchasing false information about the product of this case by selecting some of them and offering free gifts to 25 cases, such as the non-party, etc., in connection with the event of the above event, "the act of using canscopers in fact with the thickness of customers and directly using canscopers, and making it clear that the act of using the canscopers and the improvement effect of the advertisement of this case constitutes an act of using false information about the product of this case, which is likely to interfere with the consumer's use of the product of this case." The court below decided that the plaintiff's act of purchasing false information about the product of this case constitutes an act of using false information about the product of this case, which is likely to interfere with the consumer's use of the product of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to false or exaggerated advertisements under Article 3(1)1 of the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)