1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs are customers who view the film shown in the CGV theater run by the Defendant.

B. The CGV theater does not immediately show a motion picture on the display time indicated in an electronic sign board, website, mobile app, etc., but shows a commercial advertisement, etc., and then the actual motion picture is being displayed for about 10 minutes at the latest.

C. The defendant did not notify the plaintiffs of such contents despite the fact that the ten minutes of the film screening time indicated in the electronic sign board, website, mobile app, etc. had been actually shown after the commercial advertisement had been shown. The above indication of the film screening time constitutes "False director's indication or advertisement" as provided by Article 3 (1) 1 through 2 of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (hereinafter "Indication and Advertising") or "permanent indication or advertisement", and the defendant who entered into a contract to use the film screening service with the plaintiffs violated the duty to screen the film at a fixed time in accordance with the hours of the film screening agreed with the plaintiffs.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable for damages due to violation of the Act on Labeling and Advertising or nonperformance.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the violation of the Labeling and Advertising Act refers to an advertisement that is likely to deceive or mislead consumers by falsely or excessively excessively excessively excessively excessively excessively advertising any fact, and that is likely to undermine fair trade order. Whether an advertisement is likely to deceive or mislead consumers, or to mislead consumers, should be objectively determined on the basis of the overall and extreme increase that ordinary consumers have accepted the advertisement in question (see Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du82, Jun. 14, 2013; 201Du82, Jun. 14, 2013; 2013.