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, with the trade name of “C” in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, set up 18 game pumps of “Samato” (hereinafter “instant game machine”), which is a game product with the entire use of “C” (hereinafter “instant game machine”), and provided recognition as the gift of the instant game machine to a person operating a juvenile game room (hereinafter “instant game room”).

B. On May 17, 2017, the Defendant rendered a disposition suspending the instant business for 15 days from June 12, 2017 to June 26, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that the Plaintiff, in violation of Article 28 subparag. 3 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”) and Article 16-2 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, provided free gifts exceeding 5,000 won in violation of the matters to be observed by game products related business entities (e.g., criteria for the payment of premiums).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The selling price of the figure of a person offered as the gift of the instant game machine is within KRW 5,000,00. 2) Even if the above figure of the person’s consumer price exceeds KRW 5,00,00, the figure offered by the Plaintiff is used as a valuable good, and thus, it does not constitute a violation of the premium payment standard, since the figure offered by the Plaintiff exceeds KRW 4,00.

In addition, the criteria for the payment of premiums under Article 16-2 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Game Industry Act are ambiguous and ambiguous, and the disposition of this case based on such criteria is unlawful.

3) Even if the price of the above figure exceeds KRW 5,00,00, which is the base price for the payment of premiums, the offer of the above figure cannot promote speculation, and thus does not constitute a violation of Article 28 subparag. 3 of the Game Industry Act. (4) The administrative agency did not specifically deal with the violation of the standard for the payment of premiums up to the recent period, and the Plaintiff trust the same disposal standard.

Therefore, this case.