The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Whether the pop-up advertising of this case constitutes an advertisement prescribed by the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising;

A. Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (hereinafter “Indication and Advertising Act”) provides that “an advertising business operator, etc. shall widely inform or present any of the items of subparagraph 1 with respect to goods or services (hereinafter “goods, etc.”) to consumers through telecommunications under Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Framework Act on Telecommunications and other methods prescribed by Presidential Decree” and Article 2 Subparag. 1 A of the same Act.

The title "matters concerning himself/herself, another business entity, etc." B.

The title provides for "the contents, terms, and conditions of the transaction of the goods, etc. of itself or other business entities, and other matters concerning the transaction."

Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that “The methods prescribed by Presidential Decree” under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising refer to the use of media or means, such as the Internet or PC (PPC).

According to the above provisions, an advertisement refers to “any act of a business operator, etc. widely notifying or presenting certain matters concerning products to consumers via telecommunications and Internet or other media.” Thus, an advertisement constitutes an advertisement where a business operator, etc. widely notifies or presents matters under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act on Labeling and Advertising through the Internet website, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Du843 Decided May 28, 2009). B.

According to the records, the following facts are recognized.

(1) From January 1, 2009 to February 16, 2012, the Plaintiff deviates from the sales method of open market general shopping mall in the open market.