2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

가. 원고는 ■■■■■라는 상호로 게임산업진흥에 관한 법률(이하 '게임산업법'이라 한다)에 따른 게임제작업 및 게임배급업을 영위하는 사람이다. 원고는 2013. 12. 18. 피고로부터 아래와 같은 내용의 ○○○○ 게임물(이하 '종전 게임물'이라 한다)에 관하여 게임산업법 제21조 제1항 본문, 제2항 제4호에 따라 청소년이용불가 등급의 등급분류를 받았다.

1. 게임 개요- 본 게임물은 5CARD DRAW POKER 방식의 비경품 게임물입니다.- 본 게임물의 1회 게임 최소 시간은 1초 이상입니다.- 본 게임물의 시간당 이용금액은 ▲원을 초과하지 않습니다.- 본 게임물의 회당 최대 점수는 ●점을 초과하지 않습니다.- 본 게임물의 누적 최대 점수는 ■점을 초과하지 않습니다.2. 게임 설명2. 1. 게임 이용 정보① 지폐를 사용하며 투입된 지폐와 1:1로 게임상 Credit으로 표시됩니다.② 게임에서 획득한 점수는 모두 Bank 점수로 바로 처리되며, 게임 진행상 Bank 점수는Credit보다 우선적으로 사용됩니다.③ Credit 점수로 플레이시 한 게임당 ☆점을 고정 BET으로 사용하며, 변경 불가합니다.④ Bank 점수로 플레이시 한 게임당 BET은 ☆, ★으로만 변경 가능합니다.⑤ BET을 변경하면 시상 점수 또한 비례하여 변경됩니다.⑥ 본 게임의 최대 족보 당첨은 ●점입니다.2. 3. 게임 화면 설명③ 기본 배당 박스매 게임 시작시 무배당(×1), x3, x5, x7, ×10 중 1종의 배당이 표시됩니다.④ 카드 덱5장의 카드가 펼쳐지는 위치입니다.⑤ 메시지 박스

I inform users of the progress of the game by simple message. The following information and meaning will be indicated as follows. I will not indicate the purpose of the award upon commencement of the No.S. gambling game. If the proposed goal is successful, I will award it by multiplying the fashion dividend (x2, x3, x5) acquired by the unsatisfying and basic dividends.There is an additional method distinguishing the card corresponding to the unsatisfy in this game.3.3. The base proceeding ① (PLAY) commences on March 1, 200, and the game begins. ② The basic dividend and the unsatisfying will not be renewed at the beginning of the No.S., and if the card begins to be renewed, I will be able to display it again at the beginning of the No.S. Game.

B. On June 12, 2020, the Plaintiff submitted to the Defendant a statement of revised contents of the previous game products pursuant to Article 21(5) of the Game Industry Act and Article 9-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Game Industry Act (hereinafter “instant game products”) that the contents of the previous game products were modified as follows (hereinafter “instant game products”).

○○’s intent of revision is to improve the function of the ○○○○ Game, and to revise the content of simple game progress of the ○○○○○○ Game, including the content of the correction (in addition of liquid function) and the content of the correction (in addition), if the commencement (PLAY) pressing is three seconds, the CLAY color was changed to slick. ② From the date on which the CLAY is marked with the right-hand side of the C credit, it is possible to proceed without waiting the entry into the beginning (PLAY) pressing. ③ When the CLAY is suspended, the function shall be changed first.

C. On July 3, 2020, the Defendant rendered a disposition against the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) to return the above content revised statement to the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

2. As to the content revision of the game product for which you received a new game classification by report was determined by the Committee, the following was notified. (a) The reason for the decision of return of classification and the content revision history (hereinafter omitted) is as follows; (b) the notification of return of major matters - the method of return of change - the method of return 1) the notification of return - the method of return - the method of the game operation 2 (d) of attached Table 3 of the Regulations - considering the above, the applicant's report of content revision is confirmed to be significantly changed in the method of use or not succeeded to the matters of the game account (information or contents on the game use of specific game users); and (c) the applicant's report of contents revision is confirmed to be invalid in accordance with Article 9-2 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Game Industry Act if the return of the contents of the game product received was rejected.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The defendant's provision on classification of the game product of this case, which is merely a part of the defendant's internal regulations, in a disposition

The Defendant stated only the violation of subparagraph 2 (d) of attached Table 3, but did not state what part of the Game Industry Act was violated, and stated only the fact that the return disposition is made pursuant to Article 9-2 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Game Industry Act. As such, the Defendant did not present specific facts and legal grounds for the disposition to the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant violated Article 23 (1) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

2) The Defendant cited Article 9-2(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Game Industry Act based on the instant disposition. However, Article 21(5) of the Game Industry Act provides that where the reported content is modified to the extent that it needs to change the rating, the Defendant shall notify the person who filed a revised report of the contents of the fact that the content is subject to reclassification, and does not provide that the Defendant may return the revised report of contents in a specific case, and does not delegate it to the subordinate statutes. Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful since

3) The game product of this case is identical with the previous game product and its content and method of use are added, and only liquid function is added. This is merely a convenience function that reduces the inconvenience of users who need to continuously classify the instant game product into hand in consideration of the user’s age level, etc. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the method of use of the game product of this case was significantly changed compared with the previous game product.

4) Even if the instant disposition is deemed to have been notified that the instant game product is subject to reclassification pursuant to Article 21(5) of the Game Industry Act, the previous game product constitutes a disposition of refusal of rating in that it was a juvenile-use-based game product offered to a general game providing business entity. However, the Defendant did not disclose in the instant disposition the reason for refusal of rating in the instant disposition, and there is no reason for refusing rating, such as the instant game product.

B. Determination

1) Determination on the grounds for the disposition and the violation of the duty to present evidence

A) Article 9-2(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Game Industry Act provides that, where a game product reported as a content revision considerably changes its use method and exceeds the scope of content revision pursuant to Article 21(5) of the Act, the said Enforcement Rule shall be rejected without delay and the reporter shall be notified of the purport of return, etc. (see, e.g., the foregoing provision is lawful and effective as seen in paragraph (2) below). Meanwhile, the Defendant may determine necessary matters, etc. as the committee regulations regarding the composition and operation thereof, the classification standards of the game product, and the criteria for confirmation of speculative nature, etc. (see, e.g., Articles 16(7) and 21(7) of the Game Industry Act; Article 8(2) and (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Game Industry Act; Article 23(4) of the Regulations on the Classification of Game Industry provides that “any person who intends to apply for class classification, such as game products and other game products, shall comply with each subparagraph of the attached Tables 3 and 4.”

B) As to the grounds for the Defendant’s return of the Plaintiff’s report of the instant disposition in the instant disposition, “(the instant game work) is confirmed to automatically run the game without the user’s participation, such as continuous recognition of the operating server, and thus, constitutes a violation of subparagraph 2(d) of [Attachment 3] of the Regulations on Classification.” In full view of the above matters, the Plaintiff’s report of the contents revised is confirmed to have been significantly changed, and the Plaintiff stated that “the decision to return the game work by notification of return pursuant to Article 9-2(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Game Industry Act is stated” as seen earlier. According to the foregoing written disposition of this case, according to the statement of the instant disposition, the Defendant cited “the method of using the game work of this case, the use of which was reported for the instant disposition,” and “Article 9-2(3) of

C) The Plaintiff asserted that the game product of this case violated subparagraph 2 (d) of attached Table 3 of the Regulations on the Classification, which is merely a mere internal regulation, but did not state specific facts that constitute the cause of disposition. However, the Defendant stated in the disposal statement that the game product of this case did not constitute a violation of subparagraph 2 (d) of attached Table 3 [Attachment Table 3] [Attachment Table 2] 2 (d) [Attachment Table 3]. The Defendant stated that the game product of this case was automatically being carried out without user's participation, such as consecutive recognition that the operating server of this case is continuously recognized, and stated the contents of the correction and the contents of subparagraph 2 (d) of attached Table 3 [Attachment Table 3] 2 (d) [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 2 (d)] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 3] [Attachment 5] [Attachment 5] [Attachment 1] and that the Defendant did not know that there was a specific cause for the disposition of this case between the Plaintiff and the game product of this case.

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the grounds and reasons for the instant disposition were not presented is without merit.

2) Determination as to the assertion that the parent law is null and void due to lack of grounds for delegation

Article 21(5) of the Game Industry Act provides that where the content of a game product rated is modified, the defendant shall be required to report it to the defendant, and where the reported content is modified to the extent that it is necessary to change the rating, the defendant shall be notified that the rating is subject to reclassification within seven days from the date on which the report is received, and the defendant shall be required to obtain a new rating. Article 9-2(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Game Industry Act provides that the defendant shall confirm the content of the reported game product, and where the rating is not necessary to change the rating, he/she shall notify the maintenance of the rating, and where the contents of the game are revised to the extent that the change of the rating is necessary, he/she shall notify the reporter of the rating classification. Furthermore, Article 9-2(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Game Industry Act provides that the report on the return of the revised contents of the game product shall be returned without delay, and the purport of the return

(1) However, the Game Industry Act adopts the prior rating classification system for game products for the purpose of establishing a healthy game culture of the people (Articles 1 and 21(1)); the Act provides that an ex post facto reporting system for modification of the contents of the game products rated as an exception to the prior rating system, considering the characteristics of the game products from time to time (Article 1 and 21(5)); and (2) where the contents of the game products rated are modified to the extent that it is necessary to change the rating, the Act should be reported to the defendant; and if the reported contents are modified to the extent that it is necessary to change the rating classification, the Act must be notified within seven days from the date of receipt of the report; and the Act provides that the procedures for correction where the reported contents are modified to the extent that it is necessary to change the rating classification, and the above provision provides that the return of revised contents cannot be treated as a matter of course if the reported contents are not recognized to be identical; and (3) Where the revised contents of the game products are substantially changed to the extent that the reported contents of the game products are not acceptable, the Act should be rejected.

3) Determination on the assertion that it does not constitute a significant change in the method of use

According to the above facts and the evidence revealed above, the game of this case added a liquid function to the previous game, and the circumstances in which the contents and usage method of the remaining game are identical are acknowledged. However, in full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the method of using the game of this case was significantly modified compared to the previous game work, and that the method of using the game of this case exceeded the scope of content revision. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

① 종전 게임물은 5장의 카드가 회전하다가, 회전판이 멈췄을 때 형성되는 카드의 숫자 및 모양을 조합하여 이루어지는 '족보'의 내용을 가지고 그에 대한 점수를 배당하는 방식으로 진행된다. 위 '족보'가 비록 포커 게임에 사용되는 카드의 숫자와 모양을 조합하여 이루어지기는 하나, 종전 게임물은 포커 게임의 '족보'와 카드 이미지만 차용한 것으로 그 실상은 슬롯머신 또는 릴 게임의 내용을 모사한 것이다. 이와 같이 종전 게임물은 기본적으로 프로그램에 의해 자동으로 배정되는 5장의 카드와 그 카드들의 숫자 및 모양에 의해 구성될 수 있는 ‘족보’라는 우연의 결과에 따라 점수를 얻는 게임물로 배당률이 최대 1,500배(Bank 점수 ★점 배팅시 최대 ●점 당첨 가능)에 이르는 등 이미 상당한 사행적 요소를 내포하고 있었고, 실제로 종전 게임물은 불법게 임물 이용제공(환전, 게임물 이용 사행성 영업 등)의 게임산업법위반 범죄행위에 이용되기도 하였다.

However, the user may choose a card that should be left in the first five card(s) and make it possible for the user to make a specific "satisfy" by replacing the card with a new card. However, the previous game product provides the user with the "satisfyd function (satisfyd decision function)" by program, which means the function of automatically neglecting the card that is highly likely to constitute "satisfyd" or "satisfyd" among the cards first allocated (satisfy) by the program (satisfy).

③ On March 9, 2021, Plaintiff’s preparatory document Nos. 2 and 3 of Plaintiff’s preparatory document No. 2 and 2021. The previous game work depends on the program on the determination of whether a user constitutes a 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's' due to such 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 'ss 's 's 's 's 's 's '

② It is recognized that the game of this case was added only to "amount hub function" in the previous game, and that the rest of the game and the method of using the game are the same. However, even if the above liquid function is activated, even if the game was not opened separately (PLAY). For this purpose, the automatic hole function by the program is a natural premise for the automatic cancellation function (for users to choose whether it has been neglected or has been cancelled by themselves, the liquid function is released). Therefore, in the game of this case where the liquid function is activated, users of the game of this case need not make any manipulation according to the prescribed program, and if the game of this case does not require any manipulation, the game of this case can be determined on the premise that all the processes of the game of this case such as distribution, card allocation, card cultivation, winning, and score distribution will have an impact on the outcome of the game of users, even if the function of the game of this case can not be achieved directly by the user's participation or operation of the game of this case, it can be determined that the use of the game of this case can not be achieved function.

③ 종전 게임물이 비록 사행적 요소를 내포하고 있었다고 하더라도, 게임의 시작을 위하여는 이용자가 게임기 앞에 위치하여 스스로 시작(PLAY) 버튼을 조작하여야 하였고, 따라서 한 명의 이용자가 동시에 이용할 수 있는 게임기 대수가 제한될 수밖에 없었다. 또한 자동홀드 기능이 제공된다고 하더라도 이용자가 게임기 앞에 위치함으로써 스스로 홀드 또는 홀드해제 여부를 판단하여 특정 '족보'의 완성을 꾀하는 등 게임에의 직접 참여 또는 운영을 유도할 여지도 있었다. 그러나 이 사건 게임물에 추가된 액티브 기능은 앞서 본 바와 같이 이용자의 게임 참여나 운영과 상충된 기능이기 때문에 이용자가 게임기 앞에 위치하여 있을 필요가 전혀 없고, 따라서 이용자가 동시에 이용할 수 있는 게임기 대수에 아무런 제한이 없어진다. 종전 게임물 및 이 사건 게임물이 모두 시간당 이용금액이 ▲원을 초과하지 않도록 설계되어 있으나, 이용자가 동시에 이용할 수 있는 게임기 대수에 제한이 없어지는 경우 위와 같은 게임기 1대당 시간당 이용금액의 제한은 아무런 의미가 없어진다. 결국 이용행태 측면에서도 액티브 기능의 추가는 사행적 요소를 극대화시킨다.

④ 과거 십여년 동안 상당수의 게임제공업소에서 게임물에 자동진행장치, 이른바 '똑딱이'가 부착된 채 이용자들에게 제공된 사례가 발생하였다. 이에 정부는 자동진행장치 등을 이용한 게임물의 사행적 이용을 방지하고, 이용자의 조작 없는 진행을 금지하여 게임 본연의 의미를 회복하고 건전한 게임문화를 확립하기 위하여 2020. 4. 7. 대통령령 제30604호로 게임산업법 시행령 제17조 [별표2] 게임물 관련사업자의 준수사항에 "일반게임제공업자, 청소년게임제공업자, 인터넷컴퓨터게임시설제공업자 및 복합유통게임제공업자는 게임물의 버튼 등 입력장치를 자동으로 조작하여 게임을 진행하는 장치 또는 소프트웨어를 제공하거나 게임물 이용자가 이를 이용하게 해서는 안 된다(제9호)."는 규정을 신설하였는데, 이 사건 게임물에 추가된 액티브 기능은 위 게임산업법 시행령 제17조 [별표2] 제9호에서 금지하는 '게임을 자동으로 진행하는 소프트웨어'가 게임물 자체에 내장된 것에 해당한다. 이에 대하여 원고는 게임산업법 시행령

[Attachment 2] A person who commits a crime listed in subparagraph 9 of the same Table asserts that he is not a game producer or a distributor, such as the Plaintiff, but a game providing business operator. However, it is reasonable to view that a game providing business operator should not be allowed to distribute a game product with automatic progress function that he/she should not provide or allow users to use to the game providing business operator, and it is sufficient to view that the added automatic progress function of the game product is significantly changed compared with the previous game product itself.

4) Determination on the assertion that there is no ground for refusal of rating classification

A) The defendant may refuse to conduct a rating classification for an act or apparatus subject to regulation or punishment under the provisions of other Acts, such as the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc., the Criminal Act, or the Game Industry Act, or for a person who has applied for a rating classification by fraud or other improper means (Article 22(2) of the Game Industry Act). If the defendant intends to refuse a rating classification, he/she shall give the applicant an opportunity to state his/her opinion (Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Game Industry Act), if he/she refuses a rating classification, he/she shall without delay deliver documents specifying the contents of the decision and the reasons therefor to the applicant (Article 22(3) of the Game Industry Act; Article 10(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act); if he/she has an objection against the defendant's refusal of rating classification, he/she may raise an objection to the defendant within 30 days after he/she is notified of such decision, or if he/she has received the objection, he/she shall undergo an examination and notify the result to the applicant's representative within 15 days (3).

B) Meanwhile, the fact that a return disposition on revised contents of a game product under Article 9-2 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Game Industry Act is one of the concrete methods of disposal by the defendant against the revised contents of the game product under Article 21 (5) of the Game Industry Act. This is to regard the changed game product as a new game product because there is no identity between the previous game product and the changed game product because the method of use of the game product substantially changes, and thus to begin a separate examination procedure for the classification. Furthermore, the latter part of Article 9-2 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Game Industry Act provides that where a return of revised contents is rejected, the reporter shall apply for the classification of the game product concerned pursuant to Article 21 (1) of the Game Industry Act (the same purport is stated in the notice of disposition in the same case), and the defendant shall not be deemed as the grounds for rejection of the disposition in this case where the correction of contents of the game product in this case is not clearly stated in the written reply to the purport that the correction of contents of the game product in this case cannot be seen as the reasons for rejection of the disposition in this case.

C) Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is no longer examined.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.