중국전담여행사지정취소처분 취소
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding a judgment to this court as follows. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Plaintiff’s additional decision in this court asserts that the instant disposition was unlawful as the grounds of appeal by this court on the ground that the Plaintiff’s “the Defendant’s “the record of custody for the last one year” was less than 100 persons, and that the time when the Plaintiff’s “the record of custody for the last one year” was calculated was not explained and notified prior to the renewal evaluation of the time, and that such explanation was not timely and that the Plaintiff could not know it. In light of the Plaintiff’s attraction but for unavoidable reasons, the instant disposition was unlawful by abusing its discretionary power when considering the Plaintiff’s actual record of transfer to another travel company or the anticipated record of custody after the instant disposition.”
First, with respect to the assertion that the Defendant’s procedural violation was not made due to the Plaintiff’s failure to explain and notify in advance the reference point of “the results of custody for the latest one year” to the Plaintiff as to the standard point of time, etc. of “the results of custody for the latest one year”, the standard of “where the records of custody for the latest one year are less than 10 persons,” is not the standard separately prepared by the Defendant for the renewal evaluation, but the standard of “where the records of custody for the latest one year” stipulated in Article 11(3) Subparag. 4 of the Guideline that existed from the time of designation of the exclusive tourer as to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is not based on Article 3-2 of the Guideline that provides the instant disposition for the renewal of the exclusive tourer, but based on Article 11(3) Subparag. 4 of the Guideline
§ 11. Also, Article 11.