Action of Claim

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

A. From the 1980s, the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China") designated an area where group tourists are permitted to travel in consultation with the governments of each country, and introduced a travel permission system (ADS, APvved Datus) to attract and contact Chinese group tourists only by the travel agencies recommended by the countries which entered into an agreement with China. On May 27, 1908, China designated the Republic of Korea as "China's free departure tourism country". On May 1998, China designated the Republic of Korea as the defendant, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Construction and Transportation, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation related officials of the Chinese government, on June 2, 1998, and on June 27, 2000, the representative of China, composed of the parties to the public security, made an agreement on various negotiations related to tourism of Chinese organizations in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as "the network").

B. The main contents of the records of this case are as follows.

1) The Chinese side shall have 34 Chinese travel agents, who are licensed, take charge of Korean tourism services, and enter into a collective tourist recruitment and reception contract by finding a partnership among the competent and reliable travel agents recommended by the Korean side.

2) The Korean side shall recommend 35 Korean events with credit and with good financial situation and service circumstances as the national tourist travel agency, among those events.

3) 34 travel agencies designated by the Chinese side shall designate full-time personnel to take exclusive charge of the organization tourism visa affairs of the Embassy of the Republic of Korea (consular missions) in the Republic of China, and when those full-time personnel apply for a group tourism visa to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea (consular missions) in the Republic of Korea, the agency will provide convenience and issue the visa as soon as possible, unless there

C. On July 1998, in order to implement the designation, management, etc. of "China organization tourers exclusively in charge of attracting tourists" (hereinafter referred to as "exclusive tourers") recommended to China according to the instant visa. D. The Plaintiff was a corporation established for the main purpose of domestic and foreign travel business, and has been designated as a exclusive tour agent from the Defendant on August 2010, and has been in charge of the domestic travel business of Chinese organization tourists.

E. On March 4, 2016, the Defendant, under the title of the prior notification of the revocation of designation following the evaluation of the renewal of the exclusive travel agent in China, notified the Plaintiff of the fact that constitutes the cause of the instant disposition after setting out the relevant provision Article 3-2 of the Guideline, which is the grounds for the disposition. As such, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the small scale of foreign currency income (2-13,000 won per head) compared to the number of persons in custody.

F. On March 28, 2016, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the designation of exclusive travel workers pursuant to Article 3-2 of the Guideline to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff received points less than 70 points, which are the criteria for renewal as indicated below (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 24 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The designation system of a travelman exclusively in violation of the principle of statutory reservation is a system that limits the freedom of occupation, which is fundamental rights under the Constitution, and should be conducted based on the law. Since the instant guidelines restrict the Plaintiff’s fundamental rights without delegation of the law, the instant disposition in accordance with the instant guidelines

2) procedural illegality

The Defendant violated the duty of establishing and publicly announcing the disposition standards under Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act because it did not publicly announce in advance the disposition standards concerning the renewal of exclusive travel agents while rendering the instant disposition.

In addition to the failure to submit financial statements and the total amount of foreign currency income, the Plaintiff did not have sufficient opportunity to explain that the Plaintiff was subject to the instant disposition as it did not exceed 70 points, which are the standard points for renewal, and thus, the Defendant violated the duty of prior notification and hearing of opinions under Articles 21(1) and 22(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act.

(iii) deviation from and abuse of discretionary power;

Even if there is a discretion to determine the detailed criteria and methods for the examination of the renewal of exclusive tour operators to the Defendant, the instant disposition is deemed to be a deviation or abuse of discretionary authority, in view of the following: (a) the standard itself lacks objective rationality or validity in light of the purpose of the instant guidelines and the purport of the system for the renewal of exclusive tour operators; or (b) the evaluation by each item set forth in the standards for the examination thereof was conducted without validity; (c) the Plaintiff has invested a large amount of funds under the trust that the Plaintiff may continue to be designated as a exclusive tour operator unless it falls under the punishment of the instant guidelines; and (d) the Plaintiff’s evaluation score on the sole ground that the Plaintiff’s evaluation score is less than 70 points that it cannot be readily concluded that

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Whether it violates the principle of statutory reservation

1) Legal nature of the revocation of the designation of exclusive tourmen

The term "administrative disposition", which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to, in principle, an act of an administrative agency's public law, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the general public by ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or giving rise to other legal effects, with respect to a specific matter under the laws and regulations. However, even if the grounds for a certain disposition are stipulated in the administrative rules, if such disposition orders the other party to establish rights or the burden of obligations, or causes other legal effects, which directly affects the other party's rights and obligations, it constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to an appeal litigation even in this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du3532, Jul. 26, 2002; 2003Du10251, Nov. 26, 2004)

The Defendant entered into the instant visa with China, and accordingly recommended domestic events to attract Chinese organization tourists, and the Chinese travel company in charge of Korean tourism affairs with China's permission can enter into a group tour service contract only between events to be exclusively in charge of the Defendant's recommendation. In other words, domestic travel companies not designated as exclusive tourers in accordance with the Chinese travel permission system are prohibited from attracting Chinese organization tourists. Only domestic travel companies designated as exclusive tourers and recommended by the Defendant can enter into a contract for soliciting Chinese organizations with Chinese organization tourists. Accordingly, the revocation of the exclusive tour company's designation is an administrative disposition that creates the legal effect of setting the right to enter into a contract for attracting Chinese organization tourists, and thus, it constitutes an administrative disposition that is subject to appeal litigation.

2) The principle of statutory reservation and reservation that the legal basis for the cancellation of designation of the exclusive travel network is no longer sufficient if the legal basis for the cancellation of designation of the exclusive travel network by the National Assembly is established, and thus, it is understood that the area of the basic and important to realize the basic rights of the nation and its members should not be entrusted to the administration, but that the legislative body itself should decide on the essential matters of the nation's free travel with the view of the principle that the designation of the exclusive travel network is no longer effective because the exclusive travel network's legal basis for the cancellation of designation and the exclusive travel policy of the government and the government and the government and the government should take measures necessary for the promotion of the designation of the exclusive travel network's free travel system and the government and the government and the government should take measures for the improvement of the basic administrative guidelines for the sake that the exclusive travel network's legal system and the government and the government and the government and the government should establish such guidelines for the promotion of the designation and administration of the tourism network (see Supreme Court Order 2015HunBa1290, Jun. 30, 2016).

3) A disposition agency which rendered an administrative act as to whether the revocation of the designation of the exclusive travel agent is impossible in the absence of any particular defect at the time of the disposition, even though there was no separate legal ground for the revocation of the designation after the disposition, may withdraw the designation by a separate administrative act which would lose its validity, in the event of a change in circumstances where the continued existence of the original disposition is no longer necessary, or where a need for important public interest arises. However, even if the cancellation or withdrawal of the beneficial administrative disposition is made, the exercise of the right to revoke shall be determined by comparing and comparing with the disadvantage that the other party receives only when the need for important public interest to justify the infringement of the right to use, or when the protection of a third party’s interest is necessary. If the disadvantage that the other party receives is more than the need for public interest due to the disposition, it itself is unlawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7606, Jul. 22, 2004). 200>

D. Whether there exist grounds for illegality in the process

1) Facts of recognition

A) The Defendant held a public hearing on exclusive travel workers on March 21, 2013 and July 26 of the same year, held a public hearing on exclusive travel workers under the Korea Tour Business Association and held a public meeting on February 28, 2013 and on August 23 of the same year, and introduced the system for renewal of exclusive travel workers.

B) The Defendant introduced a renewal program for exclusive travel workers on September 6, 2013, notified the president of the Korea Tour Business Association of the matters of renewal evaluation and allocation. The president of the Korea Tour Business Association notified the exclusive travel workers of the results of evaluation according to the evaluation items on the same day, and notified the companies with at least 75 points out of 100 as a full-time travel workers to submit evaluation documents for implementation of the renewal program until September 23, 2013. The main contents of the above detailed evaluation criteria are as follows.

(1) Atten (15 points in attraction of tourists) and (2) financial soundness (5 points in financial safety, 5 points in operating income), and (5) compliance with the legal system (10 points without permission of tourists, 15 points in administrative sanctions, and 10 points in holding ratio of qualified tourist resources).

C) On December 5, 2013, the Defendant notified that exclusive travel agents, including the Plaintiff, who had at least 75 points in total under the above evaluation criteria, have been re-designated as exclusive travel agents, and announced that the results of attracting, product prices, administrative sanctions, history of low-priced goods, whether high-priced goods are sold or not, and the sales ratio of high-priced goods are continuously monitoring and reflected in the evaluation of the renewal system conducted every two years.

D) On September 23, 2015, the Defendant held an explanatory meeting using the electronic management system, and the Plaintiff’s employee participated in it. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant notified the head of the Korea Tour Business Association of the establishment of an electronic management system to enter the company’s performance, and indicating that the exclusive tourer would be able to utilize it in the evaluation of re-designation in 2015 in the case of performance entry records in 2014 and 2015, and the head of the Korea Venture Business Association announced it to the exclusive tourer on the same day.

E) On December 24, 2015, the Defendant publicly announced that the exclusive travel agent may be disadvantaged in the evaluation of relevant items at the time of failure to submit data related to the re-designation by January 8, 2016. At the time, the documents that the Defendant requested to submit are '2015 Financial Statements Certification Board (Certified Tax Accountants) for reporting by the National Tax Service, evidence of the award results, such as the selection of outstanding goods on a public invitation slip, contract terms and conditions for tour interpreters, MICE and medical services, etc., and evidence of high added goods and local goods attracting.'

F) On March 4, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the non-submission of the financial statements in the year of 15 and the volume of foreign currency income in comparison with the number of confined persons (2-13,000 won per person) and conducted the hearing on March 18, 2016. On March 28, 2016, the Defendant sent the renewal evaluation sheet stating the Plaintiff’s points to e-mail.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3 through 5, 7, 13, 20 through 22 (including provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Whether a disposition standard violates the duty to establish and publicly announce the disposition standard

Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that "the administrative agency shall determine and publicly announce the necessary disposition standards so that they may be made specific in light of the nature of the relevant disposition," and Article 20(2) of the same Act provides that "the public announcement of the disposition standards under paragraph (1) may not be made in cases where it is considerably difficult in light of the nature of the relevant disposition or where there are reasonable grounds that it may substantially undermine the safety and welfare of the public." The purpose of this system is to prevent the arbitrary exercise of authority by the administrative agency, thereby ensuring the transparency and predictability of administration. Therefore, the administrative agency has the obligation to establish and publicly announce the disposition standards to the maximum extent possible, so long as

In determining procedural illegality of the disposition of this case, it should be determined based on whether the above purpose of the Administrative Procedures Act was damaged. The facts that the plaintiff re-designated as exclusive travel agent in 2013 are as mentioned above. In other words, the defendant notified the above evaluation criteria at the time of renewal system implemented in 2013 and continuously reflected such evaluation criteria in the future. The plaintiff already re-designated as exclusive travel agent in 2013 can be seen as being notified of the above evaluation criteria. ② The contents of the evaluation criteria for renewal at the time of 2013 and renewal of 2015, which are most similar to the above evaluation criteria for renewal at the time of 2015, and the defendant did not disclose the 'the degree of participation in the 'electronic management system', 'the degree of participation in public offering' and official commendation', 'the degree of participation in the 2015, and 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the ''the 'the 'the 'the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the 200000000000.

3) Whether prior notice of disposition and hearing of opinions are violated

In light of the following circumstances as seen earlier, the Plaintiff re-designated as the exclusive travel agent in 2013, and the Plaintiff’s overall purport of the aforementioned facts and arguments, i.e., the Plaintiff received prior notice of the instant disposition prior to the instant disposition and participated in the hearing procedures and stated its opinions. ② The foregoing prior notice clearly stated Article 3-2 of the instant Guidelines, which includes items for the assessment of renewal systems, such as records of attracting tourists, government tourism policy response, and financial soundness, was stated as the ground provision; ③ the Plaintiff already re-designated as the exclusive travel agent in 2013, was sufficiently aware that the instant disposition was made on the grounds of falling short of the standard points according to the evaluation standards; ④ there was no specific assertion or proof as to the evaluation materials that the Plaintiff could have submitted if they were stated in the above prior notice; and ④ it is difficult to deem that there was an error of law in the process of violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit (see Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap58963, Sept. 29, 2016).

(e) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused;

1) The detailed contents of the assessment items, allocation method, method of assessment points, and detailed method and criteria for assessment points are, in principle, left to the Defendant’s own policy or autonomous judgment, which is the competent authority, and they belong to wide discretion. However, it is illegal only where the method or criteria violate the Constitution or laws, lack of unreasonable and objective legitimacy, or where it is determined that the method or criteria were considerably unreasonable or unreasonable in light of the purpose of the assessment in this case, and the purport of the relevant laws and regulations, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da66770, Dec. 13, 2007).

2) The following circumstances, i.e., the exclusive tour operator system, operated based on the instant visa and the instant guidelines for the purpose of facilitating the development of tourism between the two countries, with the aim of maintaining the qualifications for exclusive travel events more than a certain level, and maintaining the purpose and legitimacy of means, ii) the designation of exclusive tour operators constitutes a beneficial administrative act to receive rights or status from the Defendant for a certain period of time, i.e., the Plaintiff’s implementation of a system to request the maintenance of its status, i.e., the exclusive tour operator system, i., the Korea-China cooperative relationship by promoting Korean organizations in a sound and orderly manner, and i.e., promoting the development of tourism., the exclusive tour operator system operated based on the instant visa and the instant guidelines. The exclusive tour operator’s implementation of the system is recognized as legitimate, i.e., the designation of exclusive tour operators, i., the Plaintiff’s implementation of an administrative act to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or status for a certain period of time, and ii) the Defendant’s implementation of a new system for two-year travel.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Seo-chul

Judge Lee Dong-ho