logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.06.16 2017구단10307
영업정지처분취소
Text

1. The Defendant’s disposition of business suspension of 10 days against the Plaintiff on November 3, 2016 shall be revoked.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff registered the Internet computer game providing business to the Defendant on March 2, 2016, and operated the PC bank (hereinafter “C”) in the name of “C” in Daegu-Saero B.

B. On September 11, 2016, the Daegu Job Police Station discovered that three juveniles aged between 10 and 12 (hereinafter “juveniles of this case”) from the PC bank of this case were committing a game called “satisfat” (hereinafter “instant game”) that could not be used by those juveniles aged between 10 and 12 (hereinafter “instant juveniles”) and 13:00 to 14:54.

C. On November 3, 2016, the Defendant rendered a disposition of business suspension for one month pursuant to Article 32(1)3 of the Game Industry Promotion Act by providing the Plaintiff with game products for use in violation of the rating classification (hereinafter “instant violation”) and Article 35(2)6 of the same Act.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The plaintiff filed an administrative appeal, and on January 31, 2017, the Daegu Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a decision to suspend business operations for the plaintiff on the 10-day disposition of suspension of business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant game is a game that can connect only 15 years of age or older, and the Plaintiff was unable to know that the instant juveniles were engaged in the instant PC, and was not in violation of the rating classification, and there is no violation of this case. 2) Taking into account the details of the instant case and the purport that the Plaintiff was not suspected of being the police, and the fact that other local governments do not take any administrative disposition, the instant disposition is an abuse of discretionary authority.

(b) relevant legislation;

arrow