(a) Where the former Act has been amended or amended, applicable provisions on grounds arising at the time of the enforcement of the former Act;

(b) Whether a correction order under the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act violates Article 19 of the Constitution

A. Even if a new law was enacted to amend the former law, unless there is a separate express provision, the revised and amended former law should be applied as it is for the reason that occurred at the time of the enforcement of the former law.

B. The Fair Trade Commission’s corrective order “to publish the fact that an advertisement was ordered by the Fair Trade Commission as it was in violation of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act by suspending false, exaggerated, or slandering an advertisement,” and it does not require the Plaintiff to express an objective fact that the Plaintiff’s advertisement was ordered by the Fair Trade Commission on the ground that it constitutes unfair trade practices as provided by the above law and the public notice, not to require the Plaintiff to express the Plaintiff’s expression of intent that it would be superior to the Plaintiff’s conscience or conviction, or that it constitutes unfair trade practices as provided by the above law and the public notice. Therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions of the law based on the above corrective order violate Article 19 of the Constitution

Article 15(1)6 and Article 16 of the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (amended by Act No. 4198 of Jan. 13, 190)

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8200 delivered on October 10, 1990 (Gong1990.2290) 93Nu19726 delivered on March 11, 1994 (Dong) 83Du26 delivered on July 26, 1984 (Gong1731 delivered on July 1, 1984)

[Judgment of the court below] Defendant 1 and 3 others

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Fair Trade Commission (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Yu-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu2986 delivered on July 21, 1993

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

Even if the new law was enacted to revise the old law, unless there is a separate express provision, the revised old law should be applied as it is for the reason that occurred at the time of the enforcement of the old law (referring to the order of 83du2, July 26, 1984).

However, since the current Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act (Act No. 3875 of Dec. 31, 1986) was amended with specialized provisions on the type and standard of unfair trade practices, it is reasonable to apply Article 15 (1) 6 and (2) of the former Act, and Article 15 (1) 12 of the former Act to the designation of unfair trade practices (Public Notice No. 86-4 of the Economic Planning Board Notice) since the defendant issued a corrective order on the advertisement of this case committed by the plaintiff at the time of the enforcement of the former Act, it is reasonable to apply Article 15 (1) 6 and (2) of the former Act, and Article 15 (1) 12 of the former

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

In full view of the evidence of the theory, it is acceptable that the court below's finding of facts and judgment on the method of heat treatment of milk and its impact on the dietitians of milk are just, and it is not reasonable to do so, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation and violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no reason to interpret the legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no reason.

3. As to ground of appeal No. 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the defendant's corrective order of this case "" did not require the plaintiff to declare that the advertisement of this case was ordered by the defendant because it was against the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act and thus violated the former Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. It did not require the plaintiff to express his intention that the advertisement of this case constitutes an unfair trade practice as provided by the above law and the notice, but it did not require the plaintiff to express an objective fact that the advertisement of this case constitutes an unfair trade practice as provided by the above law and the notice, and therefore, as a result of the misunderstanding the purport of the corrective order of this case, the plaintiff's assertion that the provision of the relevant law is against Article 19 of the Constitution, is without merit. The judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no violation of Article 19 of the Constitution, and there is no proper ground to invoke the decision of the Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court Decision 9Hun-Ma168, Apr. 16, 199).

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)