1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff is operating a juvenile game room (hereinafter “instant game room”) with the trade name of “C,” with the female female of the method of picking off (BARBERCUR) (hereinafter “instant game machine”).

(No. 2). (b)

1) On February 21, 2017, the game machine of this case was not classified in the instant game room (hereinafter “instant control”) upon receiving a report from the Plaintiff that the instant game machine was engaged in business using the illegal game machine (hereinafter “instant game room”).

2) On February 25, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the fact that the Plaintiff operated the instant game site using the instant game machine that was not rated.

(B) On June 8, 2017, the Defendant issued a disposition of business suspension (from June 12, 2017 to July 11, 2017) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff operated the game of this case using the instant game machine that was not rated (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(C) (No. 1). (c) The instant game machine classification of the instant game machine was conducted by the Game Management Committee on February 22, 2017, which was after the control of the instant game machine (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition). [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 and No. 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination as to whether the instant disposition is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff was unaware of the fact that the game machine of this case was not classified at the time of the instant crackdown. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s game industry promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Promotion Act”).

The case is not rated in violation of Article 32 (1) 1.