[2] In a case where the change of the business plan of passenger transport business related to a route extending over the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan City is about the change of a stopping place in the jurisdiction of another Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan City, whether such change shall undergo consultation with the relevant Special Metropolitan City Mayor or Metropolitan City Mayor

[2] Even where the business plan of passenger transport business related to routes extending over the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities is modified, it is reasonable to interpret that the modification of the business plan should undergo consultation with the relevant Mayor/Do Governor, i.e., the relevant Special Metropolitan City Mayor or Metropolitan City Mayor, in cases where the modification of the business plan is to be made outside the jurisdiction of the Mayor/Do Governor having the authority to approve the

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion that the approval of the project plan against the Intervenor was unlawful on the ground that the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not hold prior consultation with the Governor of Jeollabuk-do having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s route when approving the route passenger transport business plan for the Intervenor. In so doing, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles

Furthermore, based on the facts found in its reasoning, the court below determined that the approval of the business plan as of January 22, 2001 for the intervenor in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor is based on the result of the deliberation of the "Working Committee on Land Transport Measures for Incheon International Airport Access" held by the defendant in preparation for the open port of the Incheon State, and the "Working Committee on Land Transport Measures for August 12, 200" held by the defendant in preparation for the open port of the Incheon State, and that there is no defect in the approval of the intervenor's business plan as to the intervenor's business plan by the workers dispatched by each Mayor/Do Governor in the process. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding and decision are all justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the intervenor's eligibility for the administrative appeal appellant, or violation of

2. According to Article 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18242 of Jan. 20, 2004), the term “air route” in a route passenger transport business refers to a section in which a passenger intends to regularly operate an automobile; the term “operation system” refers to a total term referring to the starting point, route, and terminal point of a route from a starting point to a starting point, the distance from an starting point, the frequency of operation, and the number of operations; according to Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Rule, the term “regular station” refers to a place between a route where a passenger can take passengers or get off. Furthermore, according to Article 5(1) of the Act, Articles 10(1)4 and 11(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, a person who intends to obtain a license for a route passenger transport business shall submit an application for a passenger transport business license, the name, location, etc. of a stopping station, and the name, route and route of passenger transport service route 1 to a stop.

In full view of the details and intent of the provisions of such statutes, the term “stopping place” means a specific place where passengers get on or get off with a certain stopping space, signboard, and ticket ticket. In such a case, the term “specified place” is not limited to a specific place within a narrow range consistent with the bottom area of the vehicle provided to passenger transport, but it refers to a certain area within a scope recognized as identical to a place under the business plan and a place within the scope recognized as a socially accepted social norms, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, and it cannot be deemed that a broad area that covers all the 63 buildings premises and surrounding roads constitutes both.

The court below held that the act of the Governor of Jeollabuk-do accepting the report is legitimate in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the nature of the notification of the Governor of Jeollabuk-do that the change of the 63th passenger transport service plan and the notification of the nature of the notification by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the subject of administrative appeal, although the change of the 63th passenger transport service plan and the notification of the change of the 63th passenger transport service plan and the notification of the 63th passenger transport service plan to the head of the 63th office in the 63th office building.

On the other hand, according to the records, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff obtained the approval for modification of the business plan from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do on December 30, 1997, in the purport that, at the time of obtaining the approval for modification of the business plan on December 30, 1997, the name of the bus stops by the operation system, the distance between the stations, and the time of operation by operation system without changing or indicating the name and location of the bus stops on the route without changing or indicating the name of the bus stops and the location of the bus stops, the Plaintiff’s approval for modification of the business plan is illegal. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s approval for modification of the business plan can not be duly asserted under the premise that the suspension of the building was 63 buildings due to the approval for modification of the business plan on December 30, 1997.

3. According to Article 11(1) of the Act, where a person who has obtained a license for passenger transport business from the competent Mayor/Do Governor intends to change a business plan, he/she shall obtain authorization from the competent Mayor/Do Governor. However, where he/she intends to change a minor matter as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, he/she shall report it to the competent Mayor/Do Governor, and pursuant to Articles 57 and 68 of the Act, the Minister of Construction and Transportation or the competent Mayor/Do Governor may entrust part of his/her authority under the Passenger Transport Service Act to the association of passenger transport business operators as prescribed by Presidential Decree. Accordingly, this provision provides for the change of minor matters subject to reporting under Article 32(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Rule. Accordingly, the use of a bus stop due to the change of the route or operation system among the business plans of urban bus transport business and agricultural and fishing village bus transport business is an insignificant matter subject to reporting to the competent Mayor/Do Governor, and thus, the change of the location of a bus stop outside the competent Mayor/Do Governor’s jurisdiction shall be determined as an exception.

The court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles to determine that the change of the plaintiff's route passenger transport business plan with the content of the 63 building stop is subject to authorization, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the report under the Passenger Transport Service

4. According to Article 70(1) of the Act and Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Rule, a Mayor/Do Governor who has jurisdiction over a route passenger transport business after being delegated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation with the authority to modify the business plan of a route passenger transport business and intends to grant authorization for the establishment or modification of a route or modification of a business plan related to a route where the route extends over at least two Cities/Dos shall consult with the relevant Mayor/Do Governor in advance, and shall apply for adjustment to the Minister of Construction and Transportation if the consultation is not reached: Provided, That under Article 5(1)2(b) of the Enforcement Rule, where a business plan related to a route extending over the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities is modified, a new route or extension shall be made to the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities where a starting point or a terminal point is located or a terminal point is changed within the jurisdiction of the relevant Mayor/Do Governor.

However, even where the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities change its business plan, it is reasonable to interpret that the change of the business plan includes a change of stations located outside the jurisdiction of the Mayor/Do Governor having authority to change the business plan, i.e., the relevant Mayor/Do Governor, i., the Special Metropolitan City Mayor or Metropolitan City Mayor, subject to consultation with the competent Mayor/Do Governor. The reason is that, if the change of the business plan extending over two or more Cities/Dos results in a competitive relationship with the existing passenger transportation service provider licensed by the relevant Mayor/Do Governor, and that there is a lot of imbalance between the transportation demand of the relevant City/Do and the supply of transport capacity within the relevant City/Do, or there is a lot of concern that legal disputes may arise between interested parties due to the change of the business plan, such as the relocation and change of the business plan to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor/Do Governor’s capacity to maintain the order of the new route/Metropolitan City by requiring consultation between the competent Mayor/Do Governor and the competent Mayor/Do Governor on the change of the business plan (see Article 1(2).5).

The court below's decision that the Governor of Jeollabuk-do should consult with the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City before determining whether to accept the plaintiff's report on the change of the business plan on October 2, 2002 on the ground that the change of the business plan on October 2, 2002 included the change of the location of the stopping place within the jurisdiction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no violation of the interpretation of Article 5 (1)

The court below found that the defendant's deliberation process on May 17, 200 and August 12, 200 on the "Working Committee for Incheon International Airport Traffic Measures", which held on May 17, 200 and August 12, 200, only deliberated on the extension of the route by changing the end point of the existing airport bus routes of "Yancheon International Airport" to the Incheon International Airport, and did not have deliberated on the modification of the business plan with the contents stopping or passing through the stop in "63 buildings" operated by the plaintiff, and thus rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the duty to consult with the Governor of Jeollabuk-do should be deemed to have been performed, in light of the records. The ground of appeal related thereto is not acceptable.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)