Supreme Court: "Fairness of Fair Trade Commission's Fine on Aekyung and SK for Humidifier Disinfectant Must Be Examined"

원본보기 아이콘

[Asia Economy Reporter Heo Kyung-jun] The Supreme Court has ruled that the legitimacy of the Fair Trade Commission's imposition of fines on Aekyung Industrial and SK Chemical, who manufactured and sold humidifier disinfectants without labeling harmful substances on the containers, should be examined.

Previously, the second trial courts in each case judged that the Fair Trade Commission's actions were illegal because the statute of limitations for imposing fines had expired at the time of the Commission's decision. However, since there is a possibility that the statute of limitations had not expired at the time the fines were imposed in 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the expiration of the statute of limitations should be reconsidered, and if the decision was made within the statute of limitations, its legitimacy should be examined.

The Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) announced on the 10th that it overturned the lower court's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in the appeal case filed by SK Chemical and SK Discovery against the Fair Trade Commission's corrective order and fine payment order, and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

The Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Kim Jae-hyung) also overturned the lower court's ruling in favor of Aekyung Industrial in its appeal case against the Fair Trade Commission's corrective order and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court.

In March 2018, the Fair Trade Commission imposed corrective and public announcement orders on Aekyung and SK for violating the Act on Labeling and Advertising while manufacturing and selling humidifier disinfectants, along with fines of 83 million KRW and 78 million KRW respectively.

Aekyung and SK filed lawsuits claiming that the Commission's decisions were illegal because they were made after the deadline. The lower courts ruled in favor of Aekyung and SK, stating that since the two companies stopped producing the problematic humidifier disinfectant products at the end of August 2011 and began recalling the products the following month, the Commission's decisions were made after the five-year statute of limitations period from the end of the violation.

However, the Supreme Court's judgment differed. It stated that when violations continued before and after the start of the Commission's investigation, the violation period should be considered to have ended at the time of the initial investigation.

The court ruled, "Considering the evidence that humidifier disinfectants containing harmful substances were still being sold and displayed in stores in 2017, it is difficult to conclude that the five-year statute of limitations had expired and that the decision was made after the limitation period."

© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.