등급분류거부처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff applied for a rating classification with respect to “B” (hereinafter “instant game product”) which is the game product produced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The instant game product includes the function of storing points on the RF card after confirming himself/herself through fingerprint recognition (hereinafter “instant function”).
B. On August 28, 2015, the Defendant rendered a decision to refuse the rating classification of the instant game products (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for rating classification on an act or instrument subject to regulation or punishment under the provisions of other Acts or this Act pursuant to Article 22(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Act”) constituted “a person who does not have a legitimate title or who applies for rating in a false or other unjust manner.”
The provision of the Enforcement Decree of the Game Industry Act (Attached Table 2) provides that the provision of a certificate indicating the result of the game can be used for money exchange. - The game product of this case is in violation of the item concerned, since it functions to store and manage the result (mark) on the external RF card. The game product of this case is a RF game with betting and dividends, and the result (bank score) is able to carry out the RF game by inserting in cash the RF card on behalf of cash. Therefore, the RF card with stored result is valuable property, and thus falls under the "private game product" of subparagraph 1-2 (a) of Article 2 of the Game Industry Act. Although the provision of the rating classification [Attachment Table 5] limits the initialization of the game product, the game product of this case restricts the initialization of the use amount under subparagraph 2 of Article 2 subparagraph 4 (4) of the Game Industry Act, it does not meet the defendant's initial standard.