2. Chemical Shipping Co., Ltd.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The plaintiffs are corporations established for the purpose of marine passenger transportation business and cargo transportation business for the plaintiffs, and the defendant, the defendant, the defendant, the Samsung New Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the defendant, the plaintiff, the defendant, the defendant, with respect to the ocean route (the port of call: the system, opening map, self-salon map, invoice, invoice; hereinafter referred to as the "existing Paragraph 1 route of this case") of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the Hanchi Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the Hanchi Shipping") has a license for marine passenger transportation business for the ocean route (the port of call: the port of call: the river, oil supply, safe map, letter notice, backpo, hereinafter referred to as the "existing Paragraph 2 route of this case") and the new aircraft (the port of call: the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the plaintiff, the plaintiff, the plaintiff et al.) are running the marine passenger transportation business.

B. On September 20, 2012, the Defendant granted a license for marine passenger transport services to the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) for marine passenger transport services, as follows, issued a conditional license for marine passenger transport services (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

A sea route: A service plan of 156 tons of New Pesta (156 tons, roadways): a license period of 4 king a day: September 20, 2013 (a period for securing adjacent facilities and convenience facilities).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal safety defense of the defendant and the intervenor

A. Main safety defense of the defendant and the intervenor

In order for the plaintiffs to issue a new license with respect to the new sea route of this case, the existing sea route of this case constitutes a sea route which is considered as the same as the new sea route of this case, and thus, the defendant must meet the transport demand criteria under Article 4 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 540 of November 30, 2012). Although the intervenor's marine passenger transport transmission business does not meet this, the defendant failed to issue a new license with respect to the new sea route of this case, and the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the disposition of this case by asserting that there was an error of law of deviating from and abusing discretionary power by issuing a new license with respect to the new sea route of this case, the defendant and the intervenor cannot be said to have violated any legal interests protected by the disposition of this case because the plaintiffs are not directly related to the disposition

B. Determination

1) A third party, who is not the other party to an administrative disposition, is entitled to a decision of the propriety thereof by filing an administrative litigation seeking the revocation or nullification of the administrative disposition, where the interests protected by law are infringed by the pertinent administrative disposition. The term "legal interests" refers to cases where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations, and in general, where a law, which forms the basis of a beneficial administrative disposition such as a license or authorization and permission, generally aims at preventing unreasonable management arising from excessive competition among the pertinent business entities, the existing business entity, who is conducting a business by obtaining a beneficial administrative disposition such as a license, authorization and permission, etc., granted to another business entity, is entitled to seek the revocation of the relevant administrative disposition even if the other party to the administrative disposition is not the other party to the administrative disposition such as a license, authorization and permission, etc., granted to the competitor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du10512, Jun. 10, 2010).

According to Articles 4(1) and 5(1)1 of the former Marine Transportation Act (amended by Act No. 11321, Feb. 17, 2012) (amended by Act No. 11321, Feb. 17, 2012), a person operating a marine passenger transport service shall obtain a license for each sea route, and require each operator to meet the transport demand and criteria prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs as one of the new criteria for a license. The purport of obtaining a license for each sea route is to maintain order and fair competition of marine transport, and to ensure the safety and convenience of the sea route operated by the ship, thereby promoting the smooth transport of passengers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du17868, Jan. 15, 2009). If an existing marine passenger transport service provider overlaps with a new sea route, and it is anticipated that the existing marine passenger transport service provider and the existing marine passenger transport service provider will obtain a new license for cancellation of the license.

2) The closing point of the Plaintiff’s new service route of this case’s No. 1 is identical to the air route of this case’s new service route of this case’s new service route of this case’s No. 7-2, in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, the new service route of this case’s new service route of this case’s No. 1 does not resist the starting point of the existing service route of this case’s new service route of this case’s No. 1 and the air route of this case’s air route of this case’s new service route of this case’s new service route of this case’s new service route of this case’s No. 1 and the starting point of the new service route of this case’s new service route of this case’s new service route of this case’s new service route of this case’s new service route of this case’s new service route of this case’s No. 31.54mm, the previous service route of this case’s new service route of this case’s new service route of this case’s new service route of this case’s No.

3) Whether the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's qualification (the existing paragraphs 2 and 3 of this case) is eligible

A) As to the existing Paragraph 2 street of this case

In addition to the purport of the argument in Gap evidence 7-1 and video, the starting point of the new sea route of this case is brins, which is about 4.7 km from the port area of the new sea route of this case between the port area of the air route of this case and about 8 minutes. However, considering the entries and video of the evidence No. 7-2, the new sea route of this case does not resist the starting point of the existing paragraph No. 2 of this case, the starting point of the air route of this case, the port area of the air route of this case, the port area of this case, the port area of the new sea route of this case are about 4.7 km from the surface area of the air route of this case, and it is difficult to view the new sea route of this case as the new route of this case No. 5 mal. 2 of this case, and it is difficult to see the new sea route of this case as the 500 m2 of the new sea route of this case.

B) As to the existing Paragraph 3 street of this case

In addition to the purport of the argument in Gap evidence 7-1 and video, the flag line of the new sea route of this case is about 4.7 km between the end point of the existing paragraph 3 of this case and the end point of the existing paragraph 3 of this case, and about 8 km is recognized, but the parties do not resist the flag point of the existing paragraph 3 of this case and the air route of this case. In addition to the facts that there is no dispute between them, the new sea route of this case does not resist the flag point of the existing paragraph 3 of this case and the flag point of the new sea route of this case. Paragraph 3 of this case does not call the flag point of the new sea route of this case, the flag point of the new sea route of this case and the end point of the new paragraph 3 of this case, it is difficult to view the new sea route of this case as 3 km and the existing paragraph 3 of this case as part of the new sea route of this case.

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiff Han Maritime Transport cannot be viewed as falling under the existing business entity for the new service route of this case or as being in a competitive relationship with the intervenor, and therefore, it cannot be said that any legal interests protected by the disposition of this case have been infringed. Thus, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff is not qualified

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is all unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong Young-jin

Judges Park Young-young

A person shall be appointed.