A. From February 16, 2012 to March 11, 2012, the Plaintiff was under suspicion of violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act by providing the game room business in collusion with D and E in exchange for points to customers who engaged in the game, and notifying the contact details of the above exchange for cash exchange for KRW 4,500 by allowing 4,50 won to exchange the game room. The Plaintiff was under suspicion of violation of the Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry, and 60 price was urgently confiscated for the Yellow Pulpy Game Co., Ltd. owned by the Plaintiff during the control process.

B. Since then, while the Plaintiff purchased more than 60 gold pets and operated a game room business from June 12, 2012 to June 18, 2012, the Plaintiff operated a game room business using 60 altered yellow pets and pigs game machines, and in collusion with F on money exchange.

The same money exchange business was arrested as a flagrant offender on suspicion of violation of the Act on the Promotion of the Game Industry by engaging in the same money exchange business as the same, and 60 price of the Yellow Pulpy and pigs game machine newly purchased at the above arrest site was urgently seized.

C. As to the facts charged of violation of the Act on the Promotion of respective Game Industry as above, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge the liability for the crime as a co-principal for money exchange business, and the Plaintiff was rendered a judgment of innocence on July 17, 2014 on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff altered the yellow Pule swine game machine (Seoul District Court Decision 2012Meu2426 Decided July 17, 2014), and that the judgment became final and conclusive on July 22, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant game machine was seized due to the Defendant’s illegal investigation and that the game room business was discontinued. As such, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the instant game room to the lessor while leasing it.