2. 합자회사 ▣▣운수

3. 유한회사 ▣▣교통

4. ▣▣운수 유한회사

5. 유한회사 ▣▣버스

6. 유한회사 ▣▣운수

7. ▣▣버스 유한회사

8. ▣▣운수 유한회사

19. 유한회사 ▣▣버스

10. ▣▣교통 유한회사

[Defendant-Appellant] Kim LLC, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant]

[Defendant-Appellant]

Dog terms, Dogna, Dogna

[Judgment of the court below]

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Demanding the development of the Namnam Joint Innovation City and the alteration of routes of citizens in Gwangjunam Joint Innovation City

Since May 2009, the common innovation city in Gwangju Jeonnam was established in the light-dong, and its infrastructure was newly built in around 2013. Accordingly, the population has increased that flows into Gwangju Jeonnam Joint Innovation City. The residents of Gwangju Jeonnam Joint Innovation City filed a civil petition for changing and newly building bus routes so that they can use cultural infrastructure, hospitals, schools, etc. created in Gwangju Metropolitan City.

(b) Application, etc. for authorization to change a primary transport business plan;

1) On April 2015, Naju Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Naju Transport”) issued an application for authorization to change the existing operation system to “Naju Innovation City from Naju Innovation City to 27.2 km, etc.” from Naju Innovation City to Naju Innovation City to 37.9 km, etc. (hereinafter “application for authorization to change the primary transport business plan”).

2) On the application for modification of the first transport business plan of Naju Transport, Naju City and Gwangju Metropolitan City, and Naju City filed an application for adjustment with the Minister for the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport pursuant to Article 78 of the Passenger Transport Service Act. The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport dismissed the proposal for modification of the transport business plan of Naju Transport on the ground that the modification of the business plan of Naju Transport is inconsistent with routes in operation within the Maju City on November 3, 2015, which would cause excessive competition among transport business operators and exceed 50% from the existing operation system, on the ground that the modification of the business plan of Naju

(c) Application, etc. for authorization to change a secondary transport business plan;

1) On December 24, 2015, Naju Transport filed an application with the Defendant for authorization on the change of the transport business plan with the content that the existing operation system was changed from Naju Terminal to Maju Terminal Station, 27.2 km, etc., to 'Naju Terminal to 1 Agricultural Cooperative Center, 34.1 km, etc.’ (hereinafter referred to as 'application for authorization on the second change of the transport business plan').

2) On the application for the authorization of modification to the second transport business plan of Naju-si and Gwangju Metropolitan City, the Naju-si filed an application for adjustment with the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport pursuant to Article 78 of the Passenger Transport Service Act. The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, upon deliberation by the Passenger Transport Service Coordination Committee, notified the results of the second amendment to the transport business plan that changed the 22 places of the area platform in Gwangju Metropolitan City from July 7, 2016 to 15, changed the 22 areas of the area platform in Gwangju Metropolitan City from among the amendments to the second transport business plan on July 2, 2016, changed the route to 15, changed the route of the area, changed the route of the 2.6 km from the back of the Namnam University to the 2.6 km University.

(d) Application for authorization to change the third transport business plan, and the disposition of this case by the defendant

B. Pursuant to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s adjustment, Pursuant to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Defendant filed an application for authorization to revise the Transport Business Plan with the Defendant on August 4, 2016, and the Defendant approved it on August 4, 2016. The details of the operation system before and after the alteration following the Defendant’s change of the Defendant’s transport business plan are as follows (the starting point and total distance of routes are partly inconsistent with the details of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s adjustment, but the difference between the starting point and total distance of routes in the area of the city is not consistent with the details of the adjustment by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, thereby allowing the change of the business plan with the authorization of the State market pursuant to Article 10 of the Passenger Transport Service Act. The difference between the main market and the part related to routes in the area of the Gwangju Metropolitan City is a matter that can be changed with

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 17, 18, 19, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 1, and the result of fact inquiry to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. Defenses before the merits

The plaintiffs are bus transportation companies running urban bus transportation business in Gwangju Metropolitan City, and are not the parties to the disposition of this case, and there are no economic interests arising from the disposition of this case since they receive the amount of losses at the expense due to the implementation of the system of completion of construction. Accordingly, there is no legal interest to seek the revocation of the disposition of this case.

B. Determination

1) In a case where the Act, which generally forms the basis of a beneficial administrative disposition such as license, authorization, permission, etc., is aimed at preventing unreasonable management due to excessive competition among the pertinent business entities, a person who is engaged in a business upon prior receipt of the beneficial administrative disposition such as license, authorization, permission, etc., of the same kind of license, etc., for another business entity, is not the other party to the administrative disposition such as license, authorization, permission, etc., granted to the relevant business entity, but is not the other party to the relevant administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 20012450, Oct. 25, 2002).

2) The purpose of Article 5(1)1 of the Passenger Transport Service Act is to establish a business plan that provides that “the business plan shall meet the transport demand and supply of transport capacity in the relevant route or private zone,” is to establish an order in passenger transport business and promote the comprehensive development of passenger transport business, thereby promoting public welfare and preventing in advance unreasonable management arising from competition among business entities. Both the Plaintiffs and Naju Transport Service are air route operators, and the operation system of Naju Transport is partially overlaps with the operation system of the Plaintiffs and resulting therefrom are expected to reduce their operational profit, and therefore it is reasonable to deem that Naju Transport is related to the Plaintiffs, and therefore, the Plaintiffs are legally interested in seeking the revocation of the instant disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du4450, Oct. 25, 2002; 2009Du10512, Jun. 10, 2010).

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant disposition is unlawful to extend the distance in violation of the standards set forth in Article 32(2)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, inasmuch as there is no inevitable reason to expand the distance of operation.

2) While the instant disposition did not have an effect to promote the convenience of passengers, it infringes on the interests of the Plaintiffs’ existing city bus routes, causes traffic congestion and traffic congestion on the changed routes. If the reduction of the number of vehicles due to the accumulation of the Plaintiffs led to the reduction of the number of vehicles caused by the accumulation of the Plaintiffs, the instant disposition is unlawful by deviating from and abusing discretion.

B. Relevant provisions

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the instant disposition violates Article 32(2)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act

Article 32(2)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides that “The change of route and operating route of a route shall be limited to the reduction of operating distance or operating time except in extenuating circumstances, such as road conditions, and shall not cause inconvenience to users.” Meanwhile, the change of operating route means “the change of operating route (including the change of stations) of the same existing route and operating route as the starting point and the starting point, but the partial change of operating route (including the change of stations), which is a license business.” According to the foregoing facts, the instant disposition is not acceptable without examining the Plaintiff’s assertion of Article 2 subparag. 2(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, which is a mere change of operating route between the starting point and the ending point.

2) Whether the instant disposition deviates from or abused discretionary power

Considering the following circumstances, the public interest, such as the improvement of traffic convenience for the State residents of the Gwangjunam Joint Innovation City and the citizens of Gwangju Metropolitan City due to the instant disposition, seems to exceed the private interest in the Plaintiffs’ operating income reduction. Therefore, the instant disposition cannot be deemed to have been abused or abused by discretionary authority.

A) Since Naju-si and Gwangju Metropolitan City adjoin each other, residents 1 who reside in the Gwangju Special Metropolitan City Joint Innovation City established in the Gwangju Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Specialized in Light-dong Special Metropolitan City, frequent use of education and cultural facilities and educational institutions in Gwangju Metropolitan City and there was a need to resolve inconvenience in the use of public transportation by the residents of the Gwangju Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special

B) The route in which Gwangju Metropolitan City passes among the existing operational routes of the Naju Traffic is "Tamamdong-Insai-Insai-Insai-Insai-Insai-Insai-Insai-Insai- insular history distance-Insular history distance-Insular history-Insular history-Insular history distance-Insular history-Insular history-Insular history-Insular history-Insular history-Insular history-Insularity-Insularity-Insularity-Insularity-Insularity-Insularity-Insularity-Insularity-Insularity-Insularity-In

C) The instant disposition changed from the Naju traffic route to the Maju-Jak-Jak Gwangju High-Yongju-Yong-Yongju-Yan Agricultural Cooperative Yannam-Yannam University-Yannam University University-Yannam University University-Yannam University University-Yannam University-Yannam University-Jannam University, which is essential to the living demand of the residents of the Najunam Joint Innovation City. This is because the route of the Naju traffic in Gwangju Metropolitan City is extended from 9 km to 13.3 km due to the instant disposition, it is difficult to see that the anticipated decrease in the transportation revenue of the Plaintiffs is serious.

D) The committee for mediation of passenger transport business seems to have deliberated upon the opinions of the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor and the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor and the Do Governor, taking into account various circumstances, such as the demand of residents of the Gwangjunam Joint Innovation City, financial burden of Gwangju Metropolitan City, and decrease in the plaintiffs' business profits. The instant disposition seems to have cited the proposal for the second revision of the transportation plan according to the adjustment of the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport following such deliberation.

E) The Plaintiffs’ assertion that the occurrence of traffic congestion, the occurrence of deficit, etc. is nothing more than a flexible prediction, and the existing businesses of the original high level cannot be deemed as the nature that should be protected against the citizens’ traffic demand.

4. Conclusion

Since the plaintiffs' claims are not correct, all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

St. M. S.D.

80 80

▣ 구 여객자동차 운수사업법(2017. 3. 21. 법률 제14716호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 10 (Change of Business Plan)

(1) Where any person who has obtained a license for passenger transport business under Article 4 (1) intends to change the business plan, national land transport.

The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport or the Mayor/Do Governor shall obtain authorization: Provided, That modification of minor matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land,

When intending to report to the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport or the Mayor/Do Governor.

(2) City/Do land where a person who has registered passenger transport business pursuant to the proviso to Article 4 (1) intends to change the business plan.

He/she shall register with the company: Provided, That when he/she intends to modify minor matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport,

shall report to the company.

(3) Where a trucking business operator falls under any of the following cases, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport or a Mayor/Do Governor shall

A change in a business plan under paragraph (2) may be restricted.

1. Where he/she fails to commence transport services by the deadline or the deadline for commencement of transport services referred to in Article 7;

2. Where he/she fails to comply with an improvement order issued under Article 23;

3. One after receipt of an order to change a business plan to close routes or reduce the number of automobiles pursuant to Article 85 (1);

In cases where the year has not elapsed;

4. Where the severity and frequency of traffic accidents are above the level determined by Presidential Decree.

5. Where the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport restricts the registration of passenger transport business under Article 5-2 (3).

(4) Procedures and standards for modification of business plans under paragraphs (1) through (3) and other necessary matters shall be the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Colonel shall be prescribed by Ordinance.

▣ 여객자동차 운수사업법

Article 78 (Consultation, Conciliation, etc.)

(1) A Mayor/Do Governor shall go on at least two Cities/Dos where the change of business plan, improvement order, adjustment of business area, etc. are changed.

In other cases, consultation with the relevant Mayor/Do Governor shall be made, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

Where an agreement is not reached, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall apply for mediation.

(2) Upon receipt of an application under paragraph (1), the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall make adjustment.

The Mayor/Do Governor shall be notified, and if the relevant Mayor/Do Governor fails to comply with the adjusted details, the adjusted details;

(2) may directly dispose of the property.

(3) Matters necessary for procedures for filing an application for mediation shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

▣ 여객자동차 운수사업법 시행규칙

Article 32 (Standards, Procedures, etc. for Amendment to Business Plans)

(1) Where a route transport business entity submits an application for modification of a business plan or modification of a business plan pursuant to Article 31.

The submission shall be made by the following deadlines: Provided, That where there is a change in transport demand, etc., such change shall be made:

If deemed necessary for the promotion of traffic convenience, an application may be filed from time to time.

1. The first half period: By March 31 each year;

2. Second half: By September 30 each year;

(2) Change of business plans for route passenger transport business shall comply with the following standards:

1. Where it is intended to newly establish routes and operating systems, the frequency of operation shall be at least four times: Provided, That Article 23 (1) of the Act shall be determined as follows;

In cases of an order for business improvement under subparagraph 10, the frequency of operations determined by the competent authorities shall govern.

2. In cases where it is intended to extend the routes and operation systems, the extended distance shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing operation systems;

3. Change of the operational routes of routes and operating systems, except in extenuating circumstances, such as road conditions, etc.;

It shall be limited to a case where the operating hours are reduced, and it shall be limited to a case where the existing operating routes are changed too much to cause inconvenience to users.

must not be required.

4. Existing height due to a change in a business plan, such as construction of a high-speed cross-city bus or a straight-type bus operation system;

It shall not be the same as a cross-city bus or a cross-city bus operation system: Provided, That the relevant operation system shall not be the same as the operation system.

One cross-city bus transportation business entity and for the improvement of residents' traffic convenience by the competent authorities;

Where deemed necessary, this shall not apply.

5. The designation of bypass routes of the competent authorities temporarily changing existing routes and operating systems shall be weekends, recesss, and special;

It shall be limited to cases where there are reasons, such as traffic congestion, such as transport congestion during transport period, etc. In such cases, the competent authorities shall hold the right of

Designation of the route and conditions for operation bypassing in consideration of road conditions, route conditions, bus stops, etc.

of the corporation.

6. Any transport over two or more Cities/Dos, as exceeding the frequency of operation under Article 33 (1) 3 (a).

An increase or decrease in the number of flights shall be made for the transport of the operation system concerned by participation of the relevant cross-country bus transport business entity or the competent authority.

It shall be changed after investigating demand, etc.

(3) Restrictions on the modification of a transport business operator's business plan under Article 10 (3) of the Act shall be as follows:

1. Where an administrative disposition is imposed on a person who falls under Article 10 (3) 1 or 2 of the Act, the relevant disposition shall be taken for one year from the date of receipt;

Approval of, or acceptance of reports on, the modification of a business plan for the system;

2. Seas in receipt of an order to modify a business plan which requires abolition as a route falls under Article 10 (3) 3 of the Act.

When an order to change a business plan to reduce the number of automobiles is issued with respect to the whole business plan of a route;

any change in the business plan corresponding to the operating system for one year from the date of receipt of the order;

Refusal to accept authorization or report;

3. Transport of chartered buses from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport under Article 5-2 (4) of the Act because it falls under Article 10 (3) 5 of the Act

Where the restrictions on registration of business are notified, registration under Article 5-2 (3) of the Act shall be made from the date of receipt of such notification.

Refusal of registration of change of a business plan including increase of chartered buses for a limited period;

(4) The Minister of Oceans and Fisheries or a City/Do shall make detailed procedures for the modification of any other project plan and other necessary matters.

The branch offices shall be governed separately by the provisions of each other.

Article 98 (Organization and Operation of Passenger Transport Business Coordination Committee)

(1) Matters for which a Mayor/Do Governor has applied for mediation pursuant to Article 78 (1) of the Act (referring to the adjustment of a project zone pursuant to Article 10 (

National land to deliberate on matters on which the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport seeks advice on adjustment.

A Passenger Transport Business Coordination Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Mediation Committee”) may be established under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Construction and Transportation: Provided, That it may be established:

Minor changes in business plans, such as the division, consolidation, operation time, etc. of the operation system, shall be omitted from deliberation by the Mediation Committee

the corporation.

(2) The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall separately determine matters necessary for the composition, operation, etc.

Article 99 (Guidelines for Conciliation, etc.)

(1) A conciliation committee shall comply with the following guidelines in deliberating on matters under Article 98 (1):

1. Facilitating the convenience of transportation of local residents;

2. It shall promote the balanced development of transport business operators between Cities/Dos;

3. It shall not be the purpose of securing any special right on the route.

4. No excessive competition shall be caused between transport business entities.

(2) Notwithstanding the standards referred to in paragraph (1), a mediation committee shall conduct transportation for local residents and management status of transport business operators concerned.

If deemed necessary in consideration of the actual conditions and traffic policies, part of the matters requested by the Mayor/Do Governor shall be applied for.

may be deliberated upon by revising it.