무료바카라

1. Case overview

 

The owners of an advertisement executed an advertising 무료바카라 in the form of a blog experience group with the defendant advertising company from February 19, 2020 to February 9, 2022 (the "무료바카라"). Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff, one of the advertisers, invited the other advertisers to select it as a selected party and filed this lawsuit on their behalf, raising an issue with the 무료바카라

 

2. The plaintiff’s argument

 

In the process of concluding the 무료바카라, the defendant promised to: ensure that the advertisements under the 무료바카라 would be displayed at the top of certain websites; guarantee a certain level of sales increase after the campaign; and refund the advertising fee in full if the targeted sales increase was not achieved. However, in reality, the defendant had no intention or ability to fulfill the above. Therefore, the defendant's advertisements constituted false and deceptive signs and advertisements in violation of Article 3(1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (the "AFLA") and deceived the plaintiff and other advertisers.

 

Article 8 of the 무료바카라 stipulates that in the event of termination of the 무료바카라 due to the advertiser's simple change of mind, the defendant will refund the advertisement fee less the amount for advertising campaigns already conducted to the advertisers. When executing the 무료바카라, the defendant did not explain such a provision to the plaintiff and the other advertisers. Therefore, the defendant was prohibited from claiming on the basis of Article 3 of the Act on Regulation of Terms and Conditions (the "ARTC").

 

3. Our assistance

 

First, we argued that the part of the complaint concerning the other advertisers should be dismissed, noting that the plaintiff and the other advertisers entered into the 무료바카라 with the defendant under different circumstances and that the plaintiff and the other advertisers did not have a common interest in selecting the plaintiff as their representative in the lawsuit.

 

Next, we emphasized that the defendant explained to the plaintiff and the other advertisers to the effect that similar advertisements had been displayed at the top of certain websites in the past, the defendant would extend the advertising 무료바카라 at no cost if a certain level of sales was not achieved after the advertisement, and the defendant would refund the advertising fee in full if such an extension was not achieved, and that the plaintiff’s allegations were based on a misunderstanding of the defendant’s explanations, and therefore the defendant did not deceive the plaintiff and the other advertisers.

 

Finally, we argued and proved that the above explanations did not constitute an advertisement subject to the AFLA since they were nothing more than explanations given by the defendant's employees to the plaintiff and the other advertisers in order to introduce the relevant product over the phone, and that the defendant had informed the plaintiff and the other advertisers of Article 8 of the 무료바카라 in the course of executing the 무료바카라.

 

4. The court's judgment: dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint and claims

 

The court dismisses the part of the claims relating to the other advertisers as there is no common interest between the plaintiff and the other advertisers as claimed by us. Next, the court dismisses the part of the claims concerning the plaintiffs, finding that the contents of the 무료바카라 were fully explained to the plaintiff before the 무료바카라 was signed, so there was no deception, and therefore no violation of the ARTC, and that the explanations given by the defendant's employees to the plaintiff and the other advertisers over the phone do not constitute advertising under the AFLA, and therefore there is no violation of the AFLA.

 

5. Significance of the judgment

 

In response to the other party's claim of violation of the AFLA, we clarified that individual sales representatives’ explanation of the product over the phone did not constitute advertising under the AFLA. This may serve as a benchmark in future cases involving the interpretation of advertising defined under the AFLA. In addition, in a dispute over an advertisement in the form of a blog review group, we proved that the advertising company fully explained the contents of the product and faithfully fulfilled its obligation to conduct advertising campaigns as provided under the 무료바카라, preventing the advertising company from refunding the advertising fee even though it faithfully fulfilled the 무료바카라.

 

​□ Attorneys in charge: Baek Kwang-hyeon, Yu Jung-min