일본에서의 표시・광고규제와 주요 사례 = Labeling & Advertising Regulations and Cases in Japan

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Labeling & Advertising activities are generally regulated in Japan by the following acts: the Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (AUPMR); the Act on Specified Commercial Transactions (ASCT); the Medical Care Act; the Act on Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices (formerly the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act); the Health Promotion Act; and the Outdoor Advertisement Act.
There is also a ‘fair commission code’ applicable to advertising, and a number of advertising guidelines issued by government bodies responsible for specific industries.
The Secretary General of the Consumer Affairs Agency and prefecture governors are responsible for issuing advertising regulations and enforcing rules on advertising in accordance with the AUPMR. The Minister of the Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) also has responsibility in accordance with the ASCT.
In addition, the Japan Advertising Review Organization (JARO), a self-regulatory body established by the advertising industry, handles complaints and enquiries from consumers, competitors and others, and makes recommendations for the modification or discontinuance of questionable representations.
If a representation is found to be misleading, the Secretary General of the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) may order the advertiser to cease the misleading representation, to take the measures necessary to prevent a reoccurrence or to take any other necessary action, including public notice of the matters relating to the implementation of such measures (collectively, a cease-and-desist order). Such an order may be issued even if the violation has already ceased to exist.
In order to prevent the harmful effects of illegal advertisements and to promote the proper provision of information necessary for transactions, various laws are regulated against illegal labeling and advertisements. This paper examines Japan's unfair labeling and advertising regulatory system, as well as major cases.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

우리나라의 경우 표시와 광고로 인한 오인유발행위를 규제하는 일반적인 법률은 「표시・광고의 공정화에 관한 법률」(이하, ‘표시・광고법’이라 함)으로 표시・광고행위의 부당성을 판단하는 요소로서 ① 거짓・과장 등에 의한 허위성, ② 소비자오인성, ③ 공정거래저해성의 세 가지를 제시하고 있다.
그런데 거짓・과장의 표시・광고의 법위반여부 판단시 어떤 표시・광고가 거짓인지 아니면 사실과 부합하지만 다소 과장이 포함된 것인지를 명확히 구분하는 것을 쉽지 않으며, 객관적 진실과의 부합여부를 문제삼는 표시・광고의 거짓 여부를 소비자오인성과 구분하여 판단하는 것도 쉬운 일은 아니다. 우리 판례는 거짓 여부의 판정에 사회통념과 같은 가치판단을 개입하는가 하면, 법문에도 불구하고 별개의 요건인 소비자오인성이나 기만적인 표시・광고의 요소인 기만성을 포함하기도 하는 등 법령상 세가지 부당성 판단요소가 명확히 구분되어 판단되지는 않는다. 이러한 부당 표시・광고에 관하여 표시・광고법에 의한 경쟁법적 규제 이외에 민사법적 구제의 필요성을 검토하는 것도 바람직하다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 相本浩志, "食品表示制度をめぐる課題について(特集 消費者行政と競争政策)" (725) : 2011
• 2 池田秀子, "食品の新たな機能性表示制度と安全性及び品質確保" 24 (24): 2015
• 3 齋藤綾音, "第３の制度｢機能性表示食品｣の概要と課題" (368) : 2015
• 4 消費者庁取引制度課, "消費者契約法逐条解説" 商事法務 2018
• 5 長村洋一, "機能性表示食品制度への期待と課題" 10 (10): 2015
• 6 小田嶋文彦, "機能性表示食品制度の意義と課題" 52 (52): 2016
• 7 林秀弥, "景品表示法の理論と実務" 中央経済社 2017
• 8 加藤公司, "景品表示法の法律相談(改訂版)" 青林書院 2018