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

A. On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for a rating classification of B game products (hereinafter “instant game products”) to the Defendant.

B. On October 22, 2014, the Defendant deemed the game products of this case as game products with “draw method” with the card in Chapter 5 as game products with management PC and servers, and as game products with points stored and reusable through the fingerprints recognition device of the game machine using a local and wireless network, and refused rating classification for the following reasons.

(2) Article 22(1) of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”) provides a game use again by converting the scores of the game which have been acquired by chance to obtain a credit, in violation of Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) such as “general game providing business operators, juvenile game providing business operators, and clothes distribution game providing business operators’ compliance with the provisions of other Acts such as the Act on Special Cases Concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, the Criminal Act, etc., or the provisions of this Act concerning regulation or punishment pursuant to this Act, or in violation of Article 17(1) of the same Act (hereinafter “the same shall apply to each person who applies for the classification of game products without legitimate title, or who applies for the classification of the game products by fraudulent or other improper means, or by providing a certificate indicating the results thereof. Therefore, the game products in this case include a person who applies for the classification of the game products, a person who applies for the classification of the game products in question, and a person who does not have the overall title to the rating number of the game products.