2015 Ghana 239952 Compensation (as stated)

1. ○○ and twenty-five persons;

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Law Firm Gyeong, Law Firm Domination

Defendant C&C Co., Ltd.

Seoul Mapo-gu World Cup 434, 10 stories (or amamba-dong)

The representative secretary secretary, secretary secretary and secretary secretary

Law Firm LLC (LLC, Attorneys Jeong Jong-soo, and Choi Jong-han, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

June 10, 2016

July 8, 2016

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

For each of the plaintiffs 5,200 won and 15% per annum following the day following the service of a written request for amendment to the purport of the claim

Damages for Delay calculated at the rate

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 the motion picture during the running time indicated in the theater electronic displays, website, mobile apps, etc., and begins with the actual screening of the motion picture for up to ten minutes after showing commercial advertisements, etc.

C. Such an act in the CGV theater constitutes a default or tort against the plaintiffs, who are customers, for the following reasons, the defendant is liable for compensation for damages arising therefrom (the claim for compensation for unjust enrichment is deemed to have been withdrawn in light of the fact that the defendant claims that the claim for compensation is reduced to KRW 5,200, respectively, and that it is claimed as consolation money

1) Liability for default

The defendant violated the agreement with the plaintiffs on film screening time displayed and advertised in electronic displays, website, mobile apps, etc.

2) Liability for tort

① The Defendant displayed and advertised the film screen time to customers in a way different from the actual screen time due to the display, such as commercial advertisements, etc., and such display and advertisement are sufficient to mislead customers about the film screen time. As such, it constitutes false or exaggerated display and advertisement under Article 3(1)1 of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (hereinafter “Fair Labeling and Advertising”). Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages under Article 10(1) of the Display and Advertising Act.

② The Defendant did not at all indicate to its customers that commercial advertisements are displayed for ten minutes after the film screen time indicated in the electronic display board, website, mobile app, etc. This constitutes deceptive display and advertisement as prescribed by Article 3(1)2 of the Act. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate for damages under Article 10(1) of the Act.

2. Determination

At the beginning time of motion pictures displayed and advertised in the theater electric display, website, mobile app, etc., various commercial, non-commercial, and non-commercial advertisements, etc. are shown, and actual motion pictures begin about about 10 minutes, there is no dispute between the parties.

However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Eul 1-1 through 7, and Eul 8, the CGV theater opened approximately 10 minutes of the motion picture screen time table and Internet ticket sales details on the Internet homepage, and the motion picture that "to minimize inconvenience due to delay in entry," such as admission tickets issued in the theater and home pockets or mobile pockets issued after mobile tugboat sales, etc. "It is recognized that the motion picture in question is informed of customers before and after the purchase of e-books." In light of this, it is difficult for the defendant to view that the motion picture is shown ten minutes after the fact that it is shown that the advertisement including commercial advertisements is shown after the fact that it is shown that it is important matters in the customer's choice of motion pictures, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant made a deceptive indication or advertisement that it was not explicitly indicated by the defendant.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant committed a tort in violation of Article 3 (1) 1 or 2 of the Display and Advertising Act, and the Defendant cannot be deemed to have breached an agreement with the Plaintiffs on running hours, etc. on the grounds as seen earlier.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed on the grounds that it is not reasonable to examine whether damages were incurred to the plaintiffs and the amount of damages.

Judges Yellow-Jin Constitution