1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a personal business entity engaged in the business of developing, producing, and distributing games under the trade name of “D,” and the Defendant is an institution affiliated with the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism established pursuant to the Game Industry Promotion Act (hereinafter “Game Industry Act”), which takes administrative actions, such as prior deliberation on game products, monitoring of game products, and follow-up management.

B. On February 6, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for game classification of B games developed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant game products”).

C. On July 15, 2015, the Defendant issued a disposition to refuse the rating classification of the instant game product on the following grounds, following the notification of the scheduled refusal of rating classification and the Plaintiff’s submission of opinions.

(hereinafter "Disposition in this case"). The Act on the Promotion of Game Industry, Article 8 (3) of the Enforcement Rule, Article 18 (2) and attached Table 3 (Standards for Classification) limit the amount of use per hour to 10,000 won. However, since the amount of use determined as constituting a speculative game is 30,000 won, if the amount of use is 30,000 won, the higher dividend points and winning points are expected, thereby promoting speculation. Thus, it is judged that Article 28 (2) 2 of the Game Act is violated, and at the same time, it is judged that "Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc." is also a speculative machine under Article 2 (1) 6 of the "Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, etc.", while the 1 page points submitted are more first used than REIT (use amount), the results of analysis show that there are problems such as PED points also PRED points, PEWD points and E.