action of this section

[Judgment of the court below]

Plaintiffs 1, 8, 35, 127 Law Firm 00

Attorney Lee Ho-o

Litigation performers 00

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

The authorization disposition shall be revoked.

A. The Plaintiffs are currently residents of Ulllledo, and 00 U.S. Do Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Odo”) are corporations incorporated on July 23, 2012 for the purpose of marine passenger and cargo transport business.

B. On August 23, 2013, the 00 Transportation filed an application with the Defendant for a license for regular coastal passenger transportation services, and on September 2013.

3. On October 1, 2014, after obtaining conditional licenses for marine passenger transportation services from the Defendant, the Defendant started regular passenger transportation services between the U.S. (U.S.) and U.S. (U.S.) with the vessel operating from around October 1, 2014 to U.S. (S.) as the vessel operating. (S.) - Port (hereinafter referred to as “UB”).

C. On November 12, 2014, the Defendant requested the head of Ulsan Gun to reply to the consultation with him pursuant to Article 4 of the Business Guidelines on Coastal Transport to change the navigation time and frequency, and the navigation speed. The head of Ulsan Gun sent a reply to the head of Ulsan Gun on October 19, 201 to the effect that, since subparagraph 0 operating on the navigation route of Ull Gun received response from residents, such as providing transportation convenience to the residents of Ull Guns from October 1, 2014 to the date, it is reasonable to review the changes in operation hours thereafter.

D. On November 20, 2014, at the request of a shipping company on November 20, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition to authorize an alteration plan for regular coastwise passenger transport services (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

가. 피인가자 : 주식회사 00해운 대표이사 배00, 배 * *나. 사업의 종류 : 내항정기여객운송사업 [ 간은 다른 선박의 운항시간에 지장이 없도록 조정되어야 합니다 .6 ) 포항여객부두 내 현재 이용하는 선석의 대체선석 확보가 불가능하거나 우리청의 지시사항을 이행하지 않을 경우 본 인가를 취소할 수 있으며, 이 경우 피인가자는 우리청에 이의제기 등을 할 수 없습니다 .7 ) 본 인가조건을 준수하겠다는 공증이행각서를 인가일로부터 7일 이내 우리청에 제출해야합니다 . 마. 한편, 이 사건 선박이 운항을 개시하기 전 이 사건 항로에서는 주식회사 00고속 해운 ( 주식회사 * * 해운이 2014. 3. 1. 주식회사 00고속해운의 해상여객운송사업을 승계 )이 운항하던 썬플라워호와 광운고속해운 주식회사가 운항하던 아라퀸즈호 2대 ( 동절기 선박검사로 인한 대체선박 포함 ) 가 운항하고 있었는데, 피고는 2014. 5. 30. 광운고속 해운 주식회사에 대하여 사업계획에 따른 운항명령 미이행, 선박보유요건 미충족 등을 이유로 이 사건 항로에 대한 해상여객운송사업 면허를 취소하였고, 이에 광운고속해운 이 행정소송을 제기하여 제1심에서 청구기각 판결을 받고 ( 대구지방법원 2014구합 21358 ), 현재 대구고등법원에 사건 계속 중 ( 2015누4021 ) 이다 .

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s 1, 2, Eul’s 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiffs have no individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the underlying laws or relevant laws and regulations of the instant disposition, and there is no standing to sue to seek revocation of the instant disposition.

B. The plaintiffs' assertion

In full view of Articles 1, 15(1), and 44 of the former Marine Transportation Act (amended by Act No. 13002, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter “the Marine Transportation Act”), and Article 35-2 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Quality of Life of Farmers and Fishermen and the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Villages, etc., the Plaintiffs are entitled to traffic rights protected under the Constitution. The instant disposition begins at Ulsan-do from March to November, 200, and there is no passenger ship departing from P.M. from P. to P.M., and thus, the Plaintiffs are subject to property and living disadvantages due to restrictions or infringement on traffic rights to freely move and move goods. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to standing to seek revocation of the instant disposition.

B. Determination

1) Even if a third party who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition is infringed on legally protected interests due to the administrative disposition, an administrative litigation seeking the revocation or invalidity confirmation of the administrative disposition shall be entitled to be judged by its propriety. The term "legal protected interests" refers to cases where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations, and in cases where there are general, indirect, and abstract interests of the general public as a result of the protection of public interests, there are no legal protected interests. Therefore, a third party who seeks the revocation or invalidity confirmation on the ground that his environmental interests are infringed or are likely to be infringed on by the administrative disposition is not the direct counter-party to the administrative disposition, and a third party who is not the party to the administrative disposition must prove that his environmental interests are the interests protected individually, directly, and specifically by the relevant laws and regulations or by the relevant laws and regulations, i.e., the right to sue to seek the revocation of the disposition in question. (Supreme Court Decision 2009Du2825 Decided September 24, 2009).

① The instant disposition authorized the project plan to change the operating time of the instant vessel from 1:0 p.m. to 2:0 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. port to 3:00 p.m. port to 11:0 p.m. port. Thus, the instant disposition should be deemed to be standing to sue for cancellation of the instant disposition, where legal interests protected by the Plaintiffs are violated due to the change in the operating time of the instant vessel.

1. ② Article 1 of the Marine Transportation Act provides that "the purpose of this Act is to contribute to the improvement of user convenience, the development of the national economy and the promotion of public welfare by maintaining the order of marine transportation, ensuring fair competition, promoting the sound development of marine transportation, and facilitating the transportation of passengers and cargo." However, Article 1 of the said Act provides that "the purpose of the said Act is to improve user convenience" for the purpose of the Marine Transportation Act, but this refers to the abstract purpose that should be pursued as a whole by the Marine Transportation Act, and thus, there is an individual, direct, and specific benefit to the plaintiffs as to the instant disposition.

It is difficult to see it.

(3) Article 15 (1) of the Marine Transportation Act provides that "the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries may, if deemed necessary to secure the means of marine transportation for island residents, designate a sea route that will assist the cost of navigation (hereinafter referred to as "going service route") and allow the State or a local government to select and operate operators of coastal passenger transportation services who will operate a subsidized service route among operators of coastal passenger transportation services;" Article 44 of the Marine Transportation Act provides that "the State or a local government may subsidize part of the fare and charge for passenger ship users within budgetary limits;" Article 35-2 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Quality of Life of Farmers and Fishermen and the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Areas may subsidize all or part of the fare and charge for coastal passenger transportation services in accordance with subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 3 of the Marine Transportation Act to secure the cost of marine transportation for island residents, etc.; however, it is difficult to deem that the State or a local government is able to provide subsidies, etc. for coastal passenger transportation services in order to secure the cost of marine transportation for island residents, and to seek specific benefits for existing passenger passenger transportation services.

④ According to Article 12(2)3 and (3) of the Marine Transportation Act, Article 8 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Marine Transportation Act, and Article 5(1)4 of the Marine Transportation Act, the said Act provides that “a passenger transport service provider shall establish an operation plan suitable for the convenience of users in carrying on the relevant business” as one of the matters to be examined by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries when seeking authorization for a change of the passenger transport service plan. However, this is merely merely a list of various items to be considered in order to determine whether to grant authorization for a change of the service plan, and it is difficult to view that the individual, direct, and specific interests are derived from seeking revocation of the direct approval for a change of the passenger transport service plan.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss all of them. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Presiding Justice

Judge Lee Young-young

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.