logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.02.21 2017구단100026
영업정지처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 28, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) was running CPC room in Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon; (b) was discovered by the competent police station that used “D” (hereinafter “instant game”) for one hour, a game for which 12 years of age and 15 years of age and 14:45, and two juveniles (hereinafter “juveniles of this case”) in the Pception room in the Pception room in the instant case.

B. On October 31, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition of suspension of business for one month (hereinafter “instant disposition”) pursuant to Article 32(1)3 of the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “the instant violation”), Article 35(2) of the same Act, and Article 26(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, by providing the Plaintiff with game products for use in violation of the rating classification.

C. The Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the instant disposition. On December 26, 2016, Daejeon Metropolitan City Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling to reduce the period of business suspension from one month to 15 days.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 each, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s act of allowing the instant juveniles to use the game in violation of the rating classification by providing the instant game account, etc. to the instant juveniles, or did not allow implied consent, etc. with knowledge that the instant juveniles have access to the instant game in violation of the rating classification. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the instant juveniles provided the instant game to the instant juveniles for the use of the instant game. The details of the instant case’s abuse of discretionary power and the Plaintiff’s duty to supervise the instant game products, which are not permitted to use by age, at the entrance of the instant bank.

arrow