logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.10.16 2019가합113909
부가금 청구의 소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established by the National Sports Promotion Act to conduct research, development, and distribution projects for the promotion of national sports, and the Defendant is a company that operates “C” located in the Gyeonggi-si (hereinafter “instant golf course”).

Article 20 (Creation of Fund) (1) The National Sports Promotion Account shall be created with the following financial resources, and the gaming industry addiction prevention and healing account shall be governed by Article 14-4 (f) of the National Committee on the Integrated Control of Speculative Industries:

3. Article 23 (Collection of Surcharges) (1) Where a management agency intends to collect surcharges pursuant to Article 20 (1) 3, it shall obtain prior approval from the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism.

(3) Where the Account Management Agency obtains approval under paragraph (1), it shall notify the operator of the relevant golf course facilities of the details of such approval, and such operator of the relevant golf course in receipt of such notification shall collect surcharges under paragraph (1) from users of the relevant golf course and pay them to the Account Management Agency.

B. The contents of the National Sports Promotion Act relating to the instant case are as follows:

C. The Plaintiff is an account management institution managing and operating the National Sports Promotion Account pursuant to Article 19(3) of the National Sports Promotion Act, and applied for a surcharge business plan in 2018 and 2019 and obtained approval from the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism.

On December 27, 2019, the Constitutional Court accepted the proposal for adjudication on the unconstitutionality of Article 20(1)3 of the National Sports Promotion Act (hereinafter “instant provision”) with respect to Article 20(1)3 of the same Act as the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the said provision is unconstitutional (hereinafter “instant provision”).

[Based on recognition] A. A. 1-5 evidence (where a certificate has several numbers, the indication is omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply) without dispute.

arrow