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

The grounds for the plaintiff's assertion in the trial court are not significantly different from the argument in the trial of the first instance, and the judgment of the first instance court rejecting the plaintiff's assertion even if the evidence submitted in the trial of the first instance is re-examineed with the plaintiff'

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following provisions to the end of Article 2-C.3 of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the latter part of Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part to be determined by this Court argues that the revocation of the designation of the exclusive travel agent by retroactively applying Article 3-2 of the Guidelines to the Plaintiff, which had been designated as the exclusive travel agent in China without setting a period of time, was unlawful, because it violates the principle of the protection of trust.

In light of the following circumstances, the instant disposition, which the Defendant revoked the designation of the exclusive travel agent by applying the renewal provision, cannot be deemed unlawful since it violated the principle of trust protection. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(1) Even if the instant disposition revoking the designation of an exclusive administrative act falls under the withdrawal of so-called beneficial administrative act, if there is any change in circumstances where it is unnecessary to continue the original disposition without any separate legal basis, or if it is necessary for the important public interest, it may be withdrawn by a separate administrative act which has lost its validity.

② Since the implementation of the designation system of exclusive tour operators in China, unreasonable low-priceds related to group tourism of Chinese visitors who visited Korea through exclusive tour operators have been damaged by Korean tourism image, and the re-Visits rate has been lowered due to disorder in the order of travel business, including tourist, shopping coercion. As measures to maintain and manage qualifications for exclusive tour operators above a certain level, it seems that the evaluation criteria for certain qualifications necessary to maintain the status of exclusive tour operators have been prepared, and the results of examination of the performance for a certain period of time have been examined, and the renewal system has been introduced to deprive them of their rights and status.

③ While revising the instant guidelines around May 2013, the Defendant newly established Article 3-2 and prepared a provision on the basis for the renewal of the event. From around March 2013, the Defendant issued a public hearing, etc. to establish evaluation standards for the introduction of the renewal system against exclusive tourers, and notified it on September 5, 2013, and notified the Plaintiff that it was re-designated as exclusive tourers on December 5, 2013, and notified the Plaintiff that it was re-designated on the basis of the review results, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of whether it was renewed every two years. After that, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results evaluation from January 2, 2014 to October 2015, based on the data submitted by the Plaintiff.

④ The criteria applied by the Defendant to renew the status of the exclusive travel agent once every two years need not necessarily conform to the sanctions (Article 11 of the instant guidelines) that apply to the exclusive travel agent. Since the Defendant established the criteria for renewal by reflecting the opinions of exclusive travel agents through a public hearing and a public meeting on several occasions, such criteria cannot be deemed to be arbitraryly established, and such criteria do not seem to be significantly unreasonable or unreasonable.

⑤ Until the Plaintiff loses the status of the exclusive travel agent by the instant disposition, the Plaintiff recognized the operation of the said renewal system without any particular objection, and maintained the beneficial status by receiving the re-designation by applying for re-designation of the exclusive travel agent. Even if the designation of the 6 exclusive travel agent was revoked, the economic loss that the Plaintiff would incur to the Plaintiff due to the revocation of the designation of the 6 exclusive travel agent is a significant national loss that may occur when the exclusive travel agent was operated in bad faith, while the designation of the exclusive travel agent was revoked, the Plaintiff did not interfere with the travel business for tourists other than the Chinese organization tourists. Therefore, the public interest gained by the operation of the renewal system is much larger than the Plaintiff’s private interest infringed.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Park Jong-soo

Judges Lee Hyun-woo