1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running a case, online program development business, etc., and Defendant A is the chairperson of the I Committee, and Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, and H are the members of the I Committee.

An applicant for a rating classification of 30,00 won per hour exceeding the ordinary amount of use of a game product as a non-game game product for adults made with 5 card e-mailers with an operating information display device attached. As such, since an application for a rating classification of 30,00 won per hour was made in excess of the ordinary amount of use of the game product, it shall be determined that the case constitutes “where the use fee is likely to go beyond normal limits” under Article 22(2) and subparagraph 1 of Article 16(2) of the former Game Industry Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 11785, May 22, 2013; hereinafter “former Game Industry Promotion Act”). Accordingly, the applicant for a rating classification of the game product constitutes “a person who applies for a rating classification by false or other unjust means” as stipulated in Article 22(2) of the former Game Industry Promotion Act.

On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for a rating classification as a game product not permitted for use by juveniles with respect to “fishing 3 game products” (hereinafter “instant game product”) to the I Committee. However, on June 4, 2013, the I Committee rendered a disposition rejecting the rating of the instant game product (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”) on the following grounds.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the I Committee to revoke the first refusal disposition (Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap16081) and “the Plaintiff does not constitute a person who applies for the classification by false or other unlawful means under Article 22(2) of the former Game Act, and the above classification review rules violate the principle of clarity and are unlawful beyond the upper limit delegated by the higher law, and thus cannot be the basis for the refusal disposition.