(a) Whether corrective orders under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act may be issued in addition to corrective orders under the Food Sanitation Act with respect to false labelling or exaggerated advertisements with respect to the quality of food (affirmative);

(b) The case holding that an advertisement of a self-owned product without obtaining the recognition from the International Co-operation Association constitutes a false advertisement indicating the phrase "h. D. D.I.D. F.," which is recognized by the International Co-operation Association;

(c) Whether a corrective order is issued where a business operator voluntarily suspends a false advertisement, but such advertisement remains likely to undermine fair trade (affirmative)

A. In a case where it is necessary to prevent consumer's sanitary harm caused by false labelling or exaggerated advertisements on the quality of food as stated in Article 11 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act, a corrective order under Article 55 of the same Act may be issued. At the same time, in a case where the advertisement harms fair trade among competitors, a corrective order under Article 16 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act may be issued to promote free competition among enterprisers.

B. H.D.F. International Copi, Ltd. (I.F. International Copis) is not an institution that officially recognizes or determines a specific product or quality, but it is sufficient for the Plaintiff to mislead or mislead the Plaintiff that the products or the user oil produced by the Plaintiff was subject to any test, inspection, or recognition from I.D.F., despite the fact that the Plaintiff did not obtain any test, inspection, or recognition, the expression “I.D.F. recognition” in the above phrase is different from the expression “I.D.F. recognition,” and it cannot be deemed that it conforms to the I.F. standard recognized by I.F.,” and the above advertisement bill constitutes an advertisement or exaggeration of the quality of the products because it is sufficient for the Plaintiff to be aware that the products or the user oil was subject to any recognition or determination through a specific test, inspection, etc. conducted by I.D.F., and thus, it constitutes an advertisement or exaggeration of the quality of the products.

C. It shall not be construed as prohibiting only any act in the future, which is not natural milk, from being based on Articles 15(1)6 and 16 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. Thus, if the Plaintiff deemed that it was erroneous for him/her to have advertised non-natural milk as natural milk, and even if he/she voluntarily ceased such advertisement, the advertisement is nothing more than an unfair trade practice, and thereby there is a real concern that the competitor would be placed at a disadvantage, thereby, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant, the Minister of Finance and Economy, ordering the Defendant, who is the Minister, to publish the fact of violation of the Act for its correction, is in violation of the purport of

Articles 15 and 16(a) of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Attorney Park Jae-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant)

Attorney Cho Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu9543 delivered on November 29, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal are examined (the grounds of appeal are examined to the extent of supplement in case of submitting a supplementary appellate brief after the deadline for submitting the supplementary appellate brief).

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

According to Articles 15 subparag. 6 and 16 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 4198 of Jan. 13, 190), where an enterpriser makes a false or exaggerated indication or advertisement concerning goods or services, the Minister of Health and Welfare or the Mayor/Do governor may issue a corrective order. According to Articles 11(1) and 55 of the Food Sanitation Act, the Minister of Health and Welfare or the Mayor/Do governor may issue a corrective order so that the enterpriser may issue a false or exaggerated indication or advertisement. If the Fair Trade Act prohibits any false or exaggerated indication or advertisement concerning goods or violates this provision, the Fair Trade Act prohibits abuse of market dominant position and concentration of excessive economic power, regulate unfair collaborative acts and unfair trade practices, thereby promoting fair and free competition among the enterprisers (see Article 1 of the same Act). Meanwhile, if the Food Sanitation Act prohibits a corrective order or an exaggerated advertisement and its purpose is to promote the quality of food under Article 16 subparag. 15 of the Food Sanitation Act and its purpose is to prevent any competition among the enterprisers and to promote the quality of food sanitation of Article 16 of the Food Sanitation Act.

2. As to the second ground of appeal No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below affirmed that the plaintiff's advertising bill was not an organization established in the Belgium for international cooperation and consultation on dairy farming and for the promotion of scientific, technical, and economic problems, but did not recognize or determine specific products and quality as an organization established in the Belgium for the purpose of facilitating any test, inspection, or recognition from I.D.F., on the products or raw raw milk of the plaintiff, because it is sufficient to mislead the plaintiff to believe that the plaintiff's advertising bill was approved or determined through a specific test or inspection of I.D.F., this is merely an expression or exaggeration of the quality of the products, etc. "I.D.I.D.I.D.I.D.I.D.". It is justified in the judgment below that the plaintiff's advertising bill constitutes an expression or exaggeration different from the facts."

3. As to ground of appeal No. 2

According to the records, in the advertisement at issue in this case, the Plaintiff advertised that the Plaintiff’s marketing of Canadian, Australia, scoke, etc. is prohibited on the market of labur in the early high temperature heat treatment box (which means that the Plaintiff’s marketing of labur is prohibited. U.H.T milk; hereinafter U.T.T.) on the ground that the advertising at issue is based on the following: I.D. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. 200, which is the expression at issue of the article(Canadian and Hoju) of 200, for the purpose of prohibiting labur from selling labur in order to consume people. According to the evidence of the court below, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the context of labur’s sale of labur.

In the same purport, it is reasonable that the court below held that the above advertisements are likely to mislead and misunderstand the friendships of domestic competitors, which are generally accepted as U.H.T by U.T, as if the market was prohibited in Canada and Australia, and there is no ground to hold that the court below erred by misapprehending the above evidence No. 22-2, which was adopted based on the above interpretation, and there is no error in the determination of evidence by the court below in determining the evidence, and therefore there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence.

4. As to ground of appeal No. 2-4

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below did not determine that the nutritional value of U.H.T is the same as that of the nutritional value, as pointed out by the plaintiff, but it can be said that there is a difference between the above two methods of treatment and the degree of alteration and destruction of nutritional value, and that the nutritional value is less than that of the milk produced by the method of rapid treatment of low temperature time, but the difference between the above two methods of treatment can not be seen as being less than that of the milk produced by the method of rapid treatment. However, according to the first and second temperature method, it cannot be said that there is a change in the content of the calcium and the form of existence of the calcium, and that there is no difference between the above methods of treatment of calcium and the calcium, and that there is no obvious difference between the above methods of treatment of calcium and the above methods of treatment of calcium in light of the reasoning of the court below's judgment that there is no error in the law of treatment of calcium as if there is no error in the above.

5. As to ground of appeal Nos. 2-3 and 3

In order to correct a violation under Article 15 (1) 6 of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the head of the Economic Planning Board's order to take corrective measures is identical to the argument that it is not a disciplinary measure, but can only prohibit future acts, and it is not a clear and clear statement that the violation may be ordered to be published in order to eliminate the result that may harm fair trade occurring at present due to the past violation. Therefore, even if the plaintiff thought that it is wrong for the plaintiff to advertise non-natural milk as a natural milk, even if the advertisement is suspended by himself, it cannot be said that it goes against the purport of the above provision to order the defendant to publish the violation of the Act for correction, so long as there is a concern that the competitor might be placed at a disadvantage, it cannot be said that the above provision goes against the purport of the above provision. The decision of the court below to the same purport is justified and justified.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)