1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of an Internet computer game providing business to the Defendant, and operates a scamba (hereinafter “CPC”) in the name of “CPC” on the first floor of Busan Jung-gu and the underground level.

B. On February 21, 2018, from around 14:00 to 18:30 of the same day, the Plaintiff provided the E game, which is a game product for which the Plaintiff was unable to use under 15 years of age, to D as a customer of the instant scambling from around 14:0 to 12:30 of the same day (the instant violation).

C. On April 26, 2018, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 9 million in lieu of the six-month period of business suspension on the Plaintiff on the ground of the instant violation (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 2 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was taken to prevent the use of a game in violation of the ordinary age limit by designating a juvenile use zone and posting a notice that prohibits the use of a game in violation of the age limit, etc. The Plaintiff fulfilled his/her duty under the relevant statutes, which was imposed on the proprietor of an Internet computer game providing business. The Plaintiff did not have committed a violation, such as providing a game account to juveniles or allowing the users to impliedly access the game account, and the Plaintiff received a non-prosecution disposition with respect to the instant violation against which the public prosecutor was not entitled to institute a prosecution against the instant violation. In light of the above, the instant disposition was unlawful since the Plaintiff abused discretion by excessively harshing the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1 as to whether a punitive administrative disposition deviatess from or abused the scope of discretionary authority shall be objectively deliberated on the content and degree of the violation, the reason for the disposition, the necessity of public interest to be achieved by the disposition, the disadvantage suffered by an individual, and all the relevant circumstances.