영업정지처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who establishes a string game machine (hereinafter “instant game machine”) from Daegu North-gu, Daegu-gu, and conducts juvenile game providing business with the trade name of “C”.
B. On March 30, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension for one month on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the obligations of game products related business entities (standard for the payment of light goods) under Article 28 subparag. 3 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Act”) and Article 16-2 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act by providing wireless helicopter equivalent to KRW 46,90, which is the completes, with the gift of the instant game machine, on February 10, 2017.
On April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the said disposition (Seoul District Court 2017Gudan539), but the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on October 20, 2017 was rendered final and conclusive on November 9, 2017.
C. On January 10, 2018, the Defendant: (a) provided gift payment criteria to the Plaintiff on the ground that, around May 6, 2017, around 22:40 on May 6, 2017, the Plaintiff violated the standards for granting gift payment by providing the Plaintiff with a gift gift of not less than KRW 5,000 (Internet minimum price of KRW 9,700) in the instant game machine; (b) Article 28 Subparag. 3 of the Game Industry Act; Article 16-2 Subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; and Article 26(1) [Attachment Table 5] of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.
2. Individual criteria (d);
A disposition of suspension of business (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”) for a period of three months in accordance with the criteria of subsection (3) (the second violation).
[The facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s 5,00 won, which is the premium payment standard under the Enforcement Decree of the Game Industry Act, was set in ten years prior to the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was inappropriate to reflect the reality such as price increase, etc., and the Plaintiff was receiving a large amount of loans for its business, and it is difficult to operate the game room due to the game invasion, and it has already been caused by the primary violation.