2. B

Plaintiffs Kim Jong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

A. Each game machine listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached list to the Plaintiff A, and B. Each game machine listed in paragraph 3 of the attached list to the Plaintiff B.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) On May 3, 2019, C is the owner of a game farm in the foregoing game room "E-Gameland" with D, 2nd floor from the Gwangju District Court's branch on May 3, 2019, and operated the game room "T" by installing the game machine in the above game room, such as "virance", "age and sea", "tent", and "T". From October 18, 2017 to December 4, 2017; from January 2, 2018 to January 17, 2018; from 100 won, 100 won per 10 won per 10 won per 10 won per 20 won per 10 won per 10 won per 20 won per 100 won per 100 won per 20 won per 100 won per 100 won per 5th 1 year per 10th 2 year per 10th 2 year per 5th 10th 1 year per 2 year per 20th 3.

B. F. On November 5, 2018, the judgment of 2018: (a) was rendered on the 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2017 to 30th 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 1st 2nd 3th 2nd 1st 201st st 2nd 1st 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 3th 2nd

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs, who are engaged in the business of producing and distributing game products, are the owners of each game machine listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached Table 1, and the Plaintiff B are the owners of each game machine listed in paragraph 3 of the attached Table 3. C on December 30, 2017, each game machine listed in paragraph 1 of the attached Table 1 from the Plaintiff, F on January 31, 2018, each game machine listed in paragraph 2 of the attached Table from the Plaintiff A, and each game machine listed in paragraph 3 of the attached Table from the Plaintiff on June 10, 2018, were leased and operated by the Plaintiff, and each game machine listed in paragraph 3 of the attached Table was confiscated.

However, in principle, the court's decision of confiscation on the article owned by a third party other than the defendant does not allow the owner of each game machine to possess the article in relation to the defendant who was convicted of the facts which caused the confiscation, and does not affect the ownership of the third party who was not tried in the case. Thus, the confiscation of each game machine does not affect the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant is obliged to deliver each game machine to the plaintiff A, the owner of each game machine listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2, and each game machine listed in the separate sheet No. 3, the owner of each game machine listed in the separate sheet No. 3.

B. Defendant

Plaintiff A is not the owner of each game machine listed in attached Tables 1 and 2, and Plaintiff B is not the owner of each game machine listed in attached Table 3.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of each game machine listed in Paragraph 1 of the attached Table A

1) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 9-1, 2, and 15, it is reasonable to deem each game machine listed in the separate sheet No. 1 as owned by the plaintiff A.

A) On December 24, 2017, Plaintiff A purchased each game machine of KRW 32 million as set out in the separate sheet No. 1 from J operating I. 32 million.

B) On December 30, 2017, Plaintiff A agreed to lease each game machine listed in attached Table 1 (1) from December 29, 2017 to February 28, 2018, and KRW 9.6 million from February 29, 2017; however, Plaintiff A agreed to receive the rent of KRW 9.6 million until December 29, 2017.

C) C paid in the name of K KRW 3 million on December 24, 2017, and KRW 9.6 million on December 29, 2017 to Plaintiff A. This was in accordance with an agreement to pay the rent of KRW 9.6 million on each game machine listed in attached Table 1 under the above lease agreement by December 29, 2017. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, was the lawsuit of each game machine listed in attached Table 1.

Each game machine is obligated to be transferred to the plaintiff A, who is the observer.

B. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of each game machine listed in the attached list No. 2 of the Plaintiff A

1) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view each game machine listed in attached Table No. 2 as owned by the Plaintiff as owned by the Plaintiff, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of the evidence Nos. 3, 10-1, 10-2, 11-1, 2, 13, 16, and 17.

A) On January 30, 2018, Plaintiff A purchased at KRW 30,400,000,000 from J operating I, respectively, 40,000,000,000 for the New Sfin-style Game Games as listed in the [Attachment B] List No. 2 as of January 28, 2018 from L operating M.

B) On January 31, 2018, Plaintiff A leased each game machine listed in attached Table 2 to F, which was introduced from N, with a period of lease from January 31, 2018 to March 31, 2018, and KRW 7.2 million per month of rent.

C) Through the foregoing N, F paid the Plaintiff A a sum of KRW 7,200,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff on January 25, 2018, and KRW 31,52 million on January 31, 2018. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the above games to the Plaintiff A, the owner of each game machine listed in attached Table 2, as indicated in attached Table 2.

C. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of each game machine listed in the separate sheet No. 3 of [Attachment B]

1) In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to deem each game machine listed in Section 3 of the attached Table as owned by Plaintiff B, in full view of the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire arguments as stated in Section 4, 7, 8, 12, 18, 19, and 20 as owned by Plaintiff B.

A) On April 1, 2018, Plaintiff B purchased each game machine from April 1, 2018 to KRW 28 million as listed in attached Table 3.

B) On June 10, 2018, Plaintiff B leased each game machine listed in Section 3 of the attached Table to F, which was introduced from P, with a monthly rent of KRW 5.4 million for two months, and agreed to pay in advance the rent of KRW 10.8 million for two months.

C) F paid to the above P the amount of KRW 1 million on May 28, 2018, and KRW 30.8 million on May 3018, 2018. Plaintiff B and P set off the amount of KRW 9 million that F borrowed from P and the amount of KRW 10.5 million that the said Plaintiff borrowed from P, and the Plaintiff settled the borrowed amount to P as KRW 1.5 million.

2) Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the above games to Plaintiff B, the owner of each game machine listed in the separate sheet No. 3.

4. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Determination as to the assertion that each game machine listed in the separate sheet has the right to possess legally

1) The defendant's assertion

The defendant, applying Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act, forfeited each game machine listed in the separate sheet according to each judgment of this case. Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act provides that the game products to be confiscated shall be confiscated even if they belong to a third party other than the defendant. Thus, the defendant's confiscation of each game machine is justifiable. Accordingly, the defendant has the right to lawfully possess each game machine.

2) Determination

A) Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act provides that "the game products owned or occupied by a person falling under paragraph (1), profits generated by such criminal act, and property derived from criminal proceeds shall be confiscated, and if confiscation is not possible, the equivalent value thereof shall be additionally collected." Thus, the confiscation under the above provision is a special provision for confiscation stipulated in the general provisions of the Criminal Act, and even if the game products to be confiscated fall under the ownership of a third party other than the defendant, it shall be necessary regardless of the good faith. However, the confiscation under the Criminal Procedure Act is a punishment sentenced in addition to other punishment in light of the fact that the judgment of conviction against the defendant who is charged with the facts charged in a criminal trial, the effect of the judgment that has sentenced confiscation on the goods belonging to a third party other than the defendant shall, in principle, be prevented from possessing the relevant goods in relation to the defendant who has received the judgment of conviction, and it does not affect the ownership of a third party who has not been tried (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 70Da245490, Mar. 24, 19901.

B) Therefore, each judgment of this case which sentenced confiscation in each game machine listed in the separate sheet does not extend to the plaintiffs, who are not the defendant. Thus, regardless of the legitimacy of the above confiscation decision, the defendant is obligated to deliver each game machine to the plaintiffs, who are the owners of each game machine listed in the separate sheet. Thus, the defendant is not entitled to lawfully possess each game machine listed in the separate sheet based on each judgment of this case which applied Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act. Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion that each game machine listed in the separate sheet is subject to destruction

1) The defendant's assertion

Each game machine listed in the separate sheet is subject to destruction, since it has a big harmful effect by lowering the desire to work, inducing a speculative spirit, and it is probable that each game machine can repeat the same crime in the case of returning the above game machine. Therefore, the defendants are not obligated to return each game machine listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs.

2) Relevant statutes

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

3) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4, evidence 21-1, evidence 22-1, and evidence 23-1 of Gap evidence 23-1, Eul's act of exchanging tangible and intangible results obtained through the use of each game machine listed in the separate sheet or leaving them perform speculative acts using game products is illegal, and each game machine listed in the separate sheet is a game machine for which the game classification has been decided by the Game Industry Management Committee. Thus, each game machine listed in the separate sheet is difficult to view the game machine listed in the separate sheet as being subject to destruction under the Criminal Procedure Act or the Game Industry Promotion Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion on the premise that each game machine listed in the attached list is subject to destruction is also without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted for all reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jin

Judges Kim Gi-ju