2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. The Plaintiff is a regular coastal passenger transportation service provider who regularly operates a service route of shooting range-do with a vessel of “spacafafri”.

B. On October 8, 2015, the Defendant: (a) at the request of the Plaintiff to secure a stable means of transportation by the residents of the above-do; (b) on the part of the Plaintiff, he is anchored in the above-mentioned port; (c) the difficulty in the supply and demand of seafarers

In addition, it violates the fair competition among the two shipping companies operating the same sea route. For the inducement of fair competition and the safe operation of passenger ships under Article 1 of the Marine Transportation Act, based on Article 14 of the Marine Transportation Act, the business plan is modified and shipped by October 30, 2015, and the following business improvement order (hereinafter “instant business improvement order”) was notified.

- - Submission of AL-Plaintiff’s Project Plan - Contents: Intersection - Intersection - Implementation timing for the anchorage of both vessels at the regular altitude of each vessel:

A. From January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, members of the Military Service, who anchored on the parts of the Military Service Corps, (hereinafter referred to as the “Military Service”).

B. B. From January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, maid Fafafafafafafabdo - Intersections - Bafabbabbabba at one-year intervals after the time of implementation.

On February 18, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of an administrative disposition (notice of submission of opinions) on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the instant order for business improvement, and imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 600,000 on the Plaintiff on March 16, 2016, based on Article 19(1)10 of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Marine Transportation Act.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. Although the Defendant’s main defense defense Plaintiff sought the revocation of the instant disposition in the instant lawsuit, it is practically disputing the instant order for business improvement. As to the instant order for business improvement, the period of filing the lawsuit is excessive.