2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1:

A. The Plaintiff is a person who produces and sells game products with the trade name of “private wave electronic”, and the Defendant is an institution established pursuant to Article 16 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Act”) and is in charge of matters concerning the rating of game products and post-management.

B. On November 7, 2007, the Defendant rendered a rating decision (rating number: AR-07107-011) on the “Mcar’s game products” (hereinafter “instant game products”) with respect to the “Mcar’s game products produced by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant game products”).

C. After that, as a result of the investigation of the current status of the game of this case between January 24, 2008 and March 31, 2008, the Defendant: (a) determined on March 10, 2008 that the game of this case, the game of this case, which was remodeled and altered, was used as a means of speculative act; and (b) determined on March 10, 2008, that the game of this case, which was modified and altered, would be used as a means of speculative act; (c) the game of this case, in addition to the time limit for acquisition of the above item, was changed to allow premium discharge if it is above a certain point; (d) the game of this case, in addition to the time limit for acquisition of the above item, was changed to a game of this case, where the game of this case was operated as a game of this case, the game of this case, the game of this case was changed to a game of this case, and thus, (e.g., the game of this case, the game of this case was revoked 2).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Non-existence of grounds for disposition

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

(a) If the product does not constitute a speculative game product

The profit model in which the game work in this case is commercialized within the game of this case is itself different from that in case where the accumulated quantity of cocoin inputs is accumulated more than a certain amount due to money which substantially lacks capacity, it is established to return it again to the money, and it is only to increase the possibility of acquiring points of relatively high points by appearing higher points items at a certain point at a certain point in the realizing method, and it is also contrary to the ability of the money, and thus it is also different to give an opportunity to acquire items if a game is carried out automatically without the operation of the game machine. Thus, it cannot be said that the result is determined by an incidental method and it does not constitute a game product, i.e., a speculative game product that causes financial gain or loss.

(b) If the person applies for a rating in a false or other unlawful manner

Even if the game product of this case was modified or modified (i.e., the game product of this case) and the game product of this case constitutes a speculative game product, the plaintiff entered into a contract for use (hereinafter "the contract of this case") with the game producer of this case with the trade name called DM AM AM (hereinafter "NM") operated by Gangwonwon for the exclusive supply of the game of this case and for the direct sale thereof, and supplied EN with the program file of this case according to the contents of deliberation of the classification decision in accordance with the contract of this case. After that, the problem was caused by the modification or alteration of part of the game product of this case by using a separate cost and human resources without any limit from the plaintiff, the plaintiff terminated the contract of this case on January 28, 2008, and eventually, the game product of this case was lawfully obtained at the time of the application for the classification of this case, and the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have filed an application for the classification of this case with the intent of changing it to the game product of this case or any other unlawful method.

(2) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

The defendant expressed a public opinion that the game of this case is a legitimate game product without speculation as an administrative agency with the substantial authority to examine the speculative nature judgment, and the plaintiff trusted that the defendant's statement of opinion was justifiable. In addition, the plaintiff did not commit any deception at the time of applying for a review, and the plaintiff distributed the game of this case based on such trust, and thereby suffered substantial property damage due to the cancellation of the decision of rating the game of this case by the disposition of this case, the disposition of this case in this case is against the principle of trust protection.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

(1) In a case where the beneficial administrative disposition is cancelled or withdrawn or suspended, it would infringe on the people's vested vested rights. Thus, the interpretation of the legal basis should be strict, and it is not allowed to interpret the legal basis by analogy or expansion without permission beyond the prescribed meaning of the legal text.

Based on these legal principles, the relevant provisions of the Game Act, which serve as the basis for the instant disposition, will be examined.

(2) Article 21(1) of the Game Act provides, “A person who intends to produce or distribute a game product for the purpose of distributing the game product or providing it for the use thereof shall obtain a rating on the contents of the game product in question from the Game Rating Board before producing or distributing the game product in question.” Article 22(2) of the same Act provides, “The Game Rating Board may refuse a rating for a person who applies for a rating by fraud or other improper means, or for a person who applies for a rating with respect to a game product which constitutes a speculative game product.” Article 22(4) of the same Act provides, “The Game Rating Board shall revoke a rating decision without delay when it becomes aware that the game product rated is subject to the rejection of rating pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (2).”

According to the purport of each provision, if the manufacturer, etc. of a game product applies for a rating classification of the game product that constitutes a speculative game product or applies for a rating classification by fraud or other improper means, the defendant may refuse such application, and if the rating classification is determined with excessive facts at the time of the application for a rating classification, it may be revoked ex post facto.

In particular, the above reasons are the reasons for disposition based on the inherent nature or peculiar nature of the game itself, and the reasons for the above reasons are the reasons for disposition based on the illegality of the application procedure (the procedural defect) and the above reasons are different. "Where an application is filed for the rating classification of the game product constituting a speculative game product," the result of the game is determined by friendlyness regardless of user's ability, and it is determined by the game result regardless of the degree recognized as reasonable by social norms, and the game site is found to have suffered economic benefits or losses beyond the permissible scope recognized as reasonable by social norms, and it constitutes a case where an application for the rating classification is filed with respect to the game product which requires customers to carry on the game mainly or only for the purpose of acquiring economic benefits. This is the case where an application for the rating classification is made based on the improper method or cancellation of the rating classification without the above reasons. In other words, it is the case where an application for the rating classification is made by fraudulent means, which does not constitute an unlawful method or fraudulent method, and thus, it does not constitute an unlawful reason for the defendant to receive the determination of rating classification.

As can be seen, Article 22(2) and (4) of the Game Act provides for “where a person applies for a rating classification in a false or other unjust manner” as the grounds for refusal of rating or revocation of rating decisions to supplement “where a person applies for a rating classification of a game product corresponding to a speculative game product,” which is the substantive grounds for the refusal of rating or the revocation of rating decisions. As such, the defendant has significance in refusing the above application for rating or preparing a legal basis for revoking the rating decision already made in a case where the game product cannot be seen as a speculative game product by normal deliberation procedures, such as submitting documents or materials necessary for examination as if the game product’s producer, etc. were not a speculative game product, by false or fraudulent means.

(3) Furthermore, this case’s game work itself prior to the alteration and alteration as above is deemed to have no speculative elements. However, the determination of the classification was made on the premise of the defendant, and the alteration and alteration after the above determination constituted a speculative game product, and thus, it seems to have revoked the determination of the classification of the game work in this case’s game work by deeming the alteration and alteration after the above determination to constitute a speculative game product.

However, according to the legal principles as seen earlier, in order to fall under the grounds for refusal of rating or revocation of rating classification, the game of this case, which was the subject of the original decision, should be the case where (i) the game of this case was done by mistake by the defendant even though it was obviously a speculative game in light of the condition of the contents of the application at the time of the application for rating classification, or (ii) the plaintiff fabricated the external appearance of the game of this case as if it was not a speculative game by means of active deceptive means such as falsely maintaining documents or data necessary for the examination at the time of the application for rating classification as to the game of this case (the case where the application for rating was made by fraudulent or other illegal means). As seen above, the game of this case, which was the subject of the original decision, was not considered to fall under the speculative game of this case in light of its contents at the time of the application for rating classification, and even after the defendant's assertion, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as a case where the plaintiff made a false application for rating classification by changing or changing the contents of the application after the above determination.

Therefore, in support of the disposition of this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's application for a rating classification of the game product that constitutes a speculative game product is a substantive and procedural defect under Article 22 (4) and (2) of the Game Act, namely, a case where the defendant applied for a rating classification by fraud or other improper means. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful without further review as to the remainder of the plaintiff's remaining arguments.

(4) The Defendant argues to the effect that the game product of this case is substantially the same as the game product of this case, and thus, the determination of the rating classification of the game product of this case should be objectively made depending on whether the actual identity of the game product of this case has been modified or changed. Article 32(1) of the Game Act provides that "any person shall not engage in any of the following acts detrimental to the distribution order of the game product, or display or store the contents different from the rating under Article 21(1) of the Game Act," and Article 45 of the same Act provides that "any person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not exceeding 20,000 won, or who is subject to criminal punishment not for the purpose of modifying the rating classification classification of the game product of this case for the purpose of improving the rating classification classification of the game product of this case or for the purpose of changing the rating classification classification classification of the game product of this case," which provides that "any person who has provided the game classification classification classification of this case shall not be punished by law."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Acts and subordinate statutes: (Omission)

Judges Kim Yong-ho (Presiding Judge)