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

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except where the plaintiff added a new judgment on the argument in the trial under Paragraph 2 below, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the establishment of the instant disposition, it is a harsh disposition without any difference between the closure of business and the closure of business, which has been done by the Plaintiff who has been engaged only in the business of group tourists in China. Even though the Plaintiff had been designated as the exclusive tourr and had been engaged in attracting many Chinese group tourists in China, the instant disposition violates the principle of proportionality on the ground that the instant disposition was committed in violation of the instant guidelines on two occasions, on the sole basis that it violated the instant guidelines. Therefore, the instant disposition violates the principle of proportionality on the ground that the degree of private interests infringed compared to the objective of the public interest achieved is too severe.

B. Determination

In cases where a beneficial administrative disposition is cancelled or withdrawn, it would infringe the vested rights of the people. Thus, even if there are grounds such as cancellation, the exercise of the right of cancellation, etc. should be determined by comparing and comparing with the disadvantage that the other party receives, only when it is necessary for the important public interest to justify the infringement of the vested rights or when it is necessary to protect the interests of a third party (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7606, Jul. 22, 2004).

On the other hand, the guideline of this case seems to be reasonable and appropriate for the purpose of this case, and the plaintiff was designated as the exclusive travel agent from around 2012 to have been well aware of the contents and intent of the guidelines of this case, however, it is necessary to strictly manage the guidelines since it is difficult to control illegal acts of Chinese organization tourists without permission, employment without qualification, and coercion of shopping to tourists, etc. If this trend of business is reached, it is necessary to strictly manage the guidelines. The tort of exclusive events has been reported several times in the media, and the Korea Tour Association, etc. wanted to revoke the designation of the plaintiff's exclusive travel agent. Since the disposition of this case only revoked the designation of the plaintiff's exclusive travel agent, the plaintiff can continue travel business with respect to tourists other than Chinese organizations (it is difficult to see that the plaintiff actually performed business of Chinese organizations only after the establishment of the plaintiff, but it is not any other reason to see that the disposition of this case constitutes abuse of discretionary power, considering the fact that the plaintiff's disposition of this case is excessively beyond and beyond its discretion.

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, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Min Young-young

Judge Chuncheon