All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 3(1)2 of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising and Article 3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a deceptive advertisement means an advertisement that is likely to deceive or mislead consumers by concealing or reducing facts, and that is likely to undermine fair trade order.

On the other hand, a general consumer may form the overall emerculation by comprehensively taking into account not only the expressions presented by the sentences, words, designs, designs, designs, sounds, or combinations thereof directly expressed in the advertisement, but also the matters indirectly expressed and expressed, and customary and ordinary circumstances. As such, whether an advertisement is likely to deceive or mislead consumers should be objectively determined on the basis of the overall emerculation impression that ordinary consumers with common caution receive the advertisement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du82, Jun. 14, 2013). Moreover, the purpose of prohibiting unfair advertising practices under the Act on Labeling and Advertising is to establish a fair trade order and protect consumers by facilitating the provision of correct and useful information to consumers, thereby allowing them to select the correct goods or services and make a reasonable decision on purchase. Therefore, whether an advertisement constitutes “a deceptive advertisement” should be determined based on the advertisement itself, and barring any special circumstance, the circumstances, etc. that a consumer came to know in the course of trading related goods or services should not be considered.

2. In full view of the evidence of its employment, the lower court: (a) collected personal information of subscribers, such as resident registration numbers and mobile phone numbers, and provided such information to the insurance company while advertising the free gifts events held over 12 times