Ingredient inclusion/exclusion claims are used in cosmetics to emphasize efficacy and safety. Appropriateness should consider concentration/composition, evidence, and efficacy/safety implications beyond factual labeling. This study assessed 120 barrier/repair creams in Korea and compared regulations in Korea, the EU, and the US. Products were evaluated against literature-based efficacy criteria using ingredient-list order, ppm/ppb data, and positions of preservatives subject to maximum-use limits. Centella asiatica and ceramides were assessed for active constituents and barrier-lipid composition. Rates below criteria were 3.9% for niacinamide, 29.6% for panthenol, 36.5% for Centella asiatica, and 74.0% for ceramides; quantitative data were unavailable for 77.4% of these ingredients. Free-from claims appeared in 40 products (33.3%); 67.5% implied superior safety or harmfulness of excluded ingredients. Based on evidence, actual-use conditions, and regulatory status, 79 ingredient-claim cases lacked sufficient grounds for categorical exclusion; 64 (81.0%) used strong claims, while claim frequency did not track scientific justification. All three regions regulate false or misleading claims, but gaps remained in disclosing efficacy-ingredient levels and excluded substances, with differing substantiation criteria. A framework integrating concentration/composition, claim strength, ingredient characteristics, and evidence level is needed to link evidence, assessment, and regulation.