2. The total cost of the lawsuit after the filing of an appeal is due to the participation in the lawsuit.

On December 12, 1996, the Plaintiff is a passenger transport business entity commencing the transportation of airport buses after obtaining a limited license for intercity bus transport business from the Defendant on December 12, 1996, which determined the scope of business as “passengers limited (a contractor using an airport of an overseas travel enterprise)” and the validity period as “for three years from December 12, 1996 to December 11, 1999 (3).”

On September 30, 1999, the Plaintiff obtained a limited license for cross-country bus transportation business from the Defendant, who had the validity term of the limited license, again on September 30, 1999, as seen above, the scope of business as to the above route, and the validity term of the limited license was determined as “Continuance from December 12, 199.

(hereinafter “instant limited license”). On July 18, 200, the Plaintiff obtained a modified authorization for the business plan that extends the closing point of the said route from the Defendant to the Incheon International Airport from the Kimpo Airport, and operated the route of “ Jeonju-Yansan International Airport from the Gansan International Airport to the Gancheon International Airport” at least 24 times a day, and “Yancheon International Airport from the Jeonju-Yan International Airport” at least three times a day.

The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Intervenor”) was the Intervenor B, and the Intervenor B, the Intervenor B, the Intervenor, the Defendant Company C, the Defendant Company C, was granted a license for an extra-city bus transport business that operates directly from the Defendant to the Seoul Southern Terminal, and on February 1, 2005, the project plan was revised on the route of the “prestig or Jeon-ju-Seoul Southern Terminal,” and on February 3, 2015, the project plan was revised on the route of “after the Defendant’s improvement order was issued,” from the front week to the Southern-Seoul Southern Terminal on the first nine occasions a day, respectively.

On October 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) revised a business plan with respect to the intervenors on six occasions a day from the front line to the front line; (b) from the southwest to the southwest Terminal to the Seoul Southern Terminal on six occasions a day; (c) the route from the front line to the front line to the Incheon International Airport was operated three times a day, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [The grounds for recognition] contain the fact that there is no dispute, and the number with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, 15, 20.