1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 11, 2010, the Plaintiff completed a report on the sale of health functional foods to the Defendant, who is the competent authority, pursuant to the former Health Functional Foods Act (amended by Act No. 14018, Feb. 3, 2016; hereinafter “former Health Functional Foods Act”), and continued to sell health functional foods through Internet shopping mall, etc.

B. According to Articles 16(1), 18(1)6, 32(1)3, and 44 subparag. 4, etc. of the former Health Functional Foods Act, a person who intends to place an indication or advertisement on the functionality of health functional foods shall undergo prior deliberation in accordance with certain procedures and methods, and a person who fails to undergo such deliberation or who conducts an indication or advertisement with contents different from those subject to deliberation shall be prohibited, and a criminal punishment may be imposed on the violator, and the competent authority such as the head of the Gu may impose sanctions such as suspension of business.

다. 원고는 인터넷 쇼핑몰에 로즈힙분말을 주재료로 한 건강기능식품 ‘B’의 기능성을 표시광고하기 위하여 건강기능식품 기능성 표시광고의 사전심의기관인 식품의약품안전처 광고심의위원회(이하 ‘광고심의위원회’라고만 한다)에 B가 관절기능 개선에 도움이 된다는 기능성을 설명하는 과정에서 ‘연 인원 500명이 넘는 환자에 대한 인체실험을 통하여 관절기능 개선 효과가 거듭 확인 되었다’는 취지의 표시를 하고 그 근거로 ‘B 효과의 과학적 입증자료’라는 제목으로 외국 대학병원이 실시한 실험을 나열한 표시광고안을 제출하였다.

광고심의위원회는 위 표시광고 문구의 ‘환자’를 ‘사람’으로, ‘B 효과의 과학적 입증자료’를 ‘로즈힙분말 효과의 과학적 입증자료’로 각 수정하라는 심의결과를 통보하였다.

However, without complying with this, the Plaintiff from October 2013 to November 12, 2015.