1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 20, 2018, B had seized the game in the attached list (hereinafter “instant game”) as to the suspected criminal facts as set out below.

B. B, from the Gwangju District Court on November 12, 2018, operated the “D” game site on May 26, 2018 to June 20, 2018, “D” on the second floor C and the second floor, and received a summary order, such as forfeiture of the game machine of this case and the second floor from May 26, 2018 pursuant to Article 44(2) of the Game Industry Promotion Act, by installing 60 game machine of this case and allowing many unspecified customers to use it, and by calculating 10,000 won per 10,000 won per commission and deducting 10% per 10,000 won from customers.”

(hereinafter “Order of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 2 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of the instant game machine that purchased the instant game machine from E by a person engaged in the game machine distribution business.

B on May 25, 2018, the game of this case was leased from the Plaintiff and operated the game of this case since that time, and the game of this case was confiscated by the summary order of this case.

However, in principle, the judgment that sentenced confiscation of goods owned by a third party, other than the defendant, is limited to preventing possession of such goods in relation to the defendant who was convicted of the facts causing confiscation, and it does not affect the ownership of the third party who was not tried in the case.

Therefore, notwithstanding the summary order of this case, the confiscation of the game of this case does not affect the plaintiff. The defendant is obligated to deliver the game of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner of the game of this case.