205dan4070 Revocation of registration of a general game room business

Plaintiff

Ansan-si

Attorney Lee Do-young

Gunpo-Mayor

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee Jae-soo

January 12, 2007

February 9, 2007

1. The revocation of the registration of the general game room business made by the defendant against the plaintiff on March 17, 2005 shall be revoked. 2. The litigation costs shall be borne by each party.

3. The disposition described in paragraph 1 shall cease to be effective until the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 18, 2004, the Plaintiff registered a general game room business to the Defendant and operated a game room (hereinafter referred to as “instant game room”) with the trade name of “****” in the military branch.

B. On March 19, 2004, the Defendant issued a disposition to order the Plaintiff to suspend its business for 40 days (from December 20, 2004 to January 28, 2005) on the ground that the Plaintiff did not keep and manage the game products as a whole and the 18-year-old game products separately, and provided free gifts without using the method determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Culture and Tourism on August 20, 2004 (hereinafter “instant disposition of suspension”). On November 16, 2004, the Defendant sent the notice of the instant disposition of suspension to the Plaintiff by registered mail, and on November 17, 2004, the Defendant received it at the same place as the Plaintiff’s company fees.

D. On December 25, 2004, the Plaintiff operated business in the instant game room during the instant suspension period.

E. Accordingly, the defendant continued to conduct business in violation of the order of suspension of business as above. For the reason that Article 39(1)7 of the Sound Records, Video Products and Game Software Act applies, and on March 17, 2005, the defendant issued a disposition to revoke the registration of a general game room business against the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "instant cancellation disposition").

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 to 8, each entry

2. Whether the disposition of revocation of this case is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

As the Plaintiff did not know A who received the instant disposition of suspension and did not receive the notification from the Defendant, the instant disposition of suspension did not take effect, and thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition of revocation was unlawful on the premise that the instant disposition of suspension took effect during the period of suspension of business. Accordingly, the Defendant sent the instant disposition of suspension to the Plaintiff’s business office and received it by the Plaintiff’s employee A, and the public official affiliated with the Defendant directly notified the Plaintiff of the instant disposition of suspension by telephone. Accordingly, the instant disposition of suspension was lawful.

B. Determination

According to Articles 14(1), 14(2) and (3), 15(1), and 24(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, when an administrative agency takes a disposition, it shall be done in writing except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts and subordinate statutes, and in case of an electronic document, the consent of the parties, etc. shall be required: Provided, That a document related to the disposition may be made orally or by other means if a prompt or minor case is requested by the parties. In this case, a document related to the disposition may be made orally or by other means. Meanwhile, a document shall be made without delay. On the other hand, a document may be made by means of mail, delivery, or information and communications network, and a document may be made to an office, employee, or a person living together with the mental capability to divide the service, if the person to receive the service is not present at the place where the service is made. In such cases, the service using information and communications network shall be made only where the person to receive the service consents, and the service shall be made by reaching the person to receive the service except as otherwise provided for.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that A, who received the notice of the instant disposition of suspension only with the statement of Eul evidence 1 and witness testimony at the Plaintiff's business office, constitutes the Plaintiff's office worker or employee, or a person living together, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. In addition, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was any special circumstance requiring promptness in performing the instant disposition of suspension, and it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition of suspension is a minor case, the instant disposition of suspension cannot be deemed as a method of telephone notice. Thus, even if the public official in charge of the Defendant directly notified the Plaintiff of the instant disposition to the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed as a legitimate notice, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant disposition of suspension was legally delivered to

Therefore, since the instant disposition was not legally served on the Plaintiff, and thus becomes null and void as a matter of course, the Plaintiff is not a business operator in violation of the order of suspension of business due to the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition of revocation is deemed to be a ground for revocation on the ground that there is no ground for revocation. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

3. Suspension of the disposition of this case;

Meanwhile, according to the records of this case, it is recognized that the disposition of this case requires urgent measures to prevent irrecoverable damage to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the suspension of its validity constitutes a case where public welfare is likely to be significantly affected due to the suspension of its validity. Thus, the disposition of this case shall suspend its effect ex officio until the judgment

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by ordering the suspension of validity of the disposition of this case ex officio.

Judges