The P2E game was first demonstrated in Korean court. The court watched the game ‘Five Stars for Klaytn’. Sky People introduced the collectible RPG game, which is the genre of Five Stars. The Game Water Management Committee focused on P2E game features that can be a problem. The court showed not bright about collecting RPGs and P2E games. The court wondered if the game company only provided the NFT function, which could be responsible for preventing meandering. It was an important task for the plaintiff and the defendant to understand the court.
On the 20th, the 4th Seoul Administrative Court (Deputy Judge Kim Jong -joong) conducted a third pleading of Sky People’s claim to cancel the cancellation of the classification decision. The case deals with the Game Water Management Committee’s cancellation of Sky People’s ‘Five Stars for Klaytn’ (Five Stars) classification. The game commission refused to classify because of the serious meandering because of the NFT function in ‘Five Stars’. Sky People filed a lawsuit against the game and filed a lawsuit for cancellation of administrative disposal. Currently, the court accepts the application of Sky People’s disposal and is in the process of canceling the administrative disposal.
The court defined this issue as whether Five Stars is a meandering element of the meandering acts and coincidence. The NFT function provided by Five Stars is the current game industry law provision. Article 28 (3) of the Game Industry Act stipulates that “the prizes will not promote the meandering.” In December 2020, the Constitutional Court decided that all the provisions were constitutional.
The lawyer of the Kim & Chang Law Office, who was in charge of the Sky People Lawyer, played the game and introduced the game. Kim & Chang said, “The game committee is in the position that the trading function of the Sky People is given to the youth, so we should at least be able to service the ‘Five Stars’ as a rating of youth.”
Kim & Chang introduced that ‘Five Stars’ is a general collection RPG and a game that emphasizes user’s efforts and strategic play rather than meandering. The automatic hunting function, which the game commission is a problem, is already provided by many games, so it is difficult to understand it as a problem. He also argued that it is difficult to promote meandering because he can get advanced items that can be NFT without investing in the game.
At this time, the court asked, “Is the item from automatic hunting and the items from manual battles?” Kim & Chang said, “You can get better items when you manually battles,” he said.
The legal representative of the game was demonstrated ‘Five Stars’. The game committee showed a failure when he played the most difficult dungeon with the character configuration. The Game Committee insisted that it would promote serious meandering because of the need for charging to target more difficult dungeons. In addition, the Game Committee referred to as ‘Tongbal’ to use automatic hunting to obtain items that ‘Five Stars’ users can get NFT. It is explained that the act of trafficking cannot be seen as a general game play.
“The manuscript claims that there is an item that can be NFT by manual hunting, but it is not,” he said. I was concerned. The Game Committee sees the act of the item ownership to the user more seriously than the meandering of the game company.
The court found out about the incident, saying, “There is a way to buy and sell ‘Five Stars’ items on the Internet.” I am interested in buying and selling items. ”
The Tribunal was wondering what value it was worth other than the item proof outside the game, even if it could NFT. Even now, the item transaction brokerage site has a transfer of ownership in the game, and the manuscript and the defendant are different from this phenomenon. If the court only deals with the NFT painter in the game, it can be advantageous if the game company does not affect item transactions between users.
Kim & Chang replaced that the item cash transactions made by the user based on the Supreme Court case could not be prevented without any special circumstances. Kim & Chang said, “The Supreme Court also said that item cash transaction was not illegal, but I want to question how the game industry law is illegal.” The Game Committee replied, “The purpose of the Supreme Court is that it cannot be ignored by the user’s efforts.”
At the end of the argument, the court asked Sky People, “I was interested in our case,” he asked. “There is a large company behind the Sky People. At this time, the plaintiff and the defendant looked at each other and thought about the trial’s intentions. Kim & Chang said, “It’s not true at all,” he said. “If you’re talking about a blockchain system, it’s like using an open source made by a company called Kakao Group’s Ground X.”
Finally, the court decided to proceed with the next pleadings on July 15.