1+1 행사 표시⋅광고의 부당성 연구 - 대법원 2022. 4. 28. 선고 2019두36001 판결을 중심으로 -

Abstract

Large Supermarkets hold 1+1 promotion to promote sales. However, there were cases where the prices of some products were raised just before the promotion, or products with no price change were labeled and advertised as if they were on sale. Accordingly, the Fair Trade Commission took corrective action against such labeling and advertising practices, and business operators filed a lawsuit. This study studied three decisions of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set the standard for judging whether an advertisement is false as the general Consumer with average and normal knowledge. The falsity of the advertisement must be judged based on the consumer’s overall impression. This position of the Supreme Court appears to be reasonable. First, the Supreme Court presented Article 3 of the Labeling and Advertising Act etc. as a standard for determining whether the labeling and advertising in the case was unfair. However, The Supreme Court interpreted the Public notice of the The Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising in this case as having a legal supplementary effect. Additionally, if there was no economic benefit for consumers through the 1+1 promotion, labeling and advertising were judged to be unfair. The Supreme Court’s judgment on whether it is appropriate labeling in cases where there is some economic benefit cannot be accepted. This is because the average consumer may perceive the Buy 1 Get 1 event as a discount of about 50% (or buy one, get one free).