2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On March 28, 2016, the defendant revoked the revocation of the designation of the exclusive travel agent in China against the plaintiff on March 28, 2016.

The same shall apply to the order.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the first and second grounds for the judgment of the first instance are as follows: (b) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (c) Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the main text of the Civil Procedure Act, i.e., Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (d) Article 420 of the amended portion.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the overall purport of the oral argument, even if the defendant did not publish in advance the evaluation criteria for the renewal of the year 2016 to exclusive travel workers, including the plaintiff, such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the defendant arbitrarily exercised his authority in rendering the instant disposition or did not guarantee the transparency and predictability of administration. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a procedural violation of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act. The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

① The Defendant introduced a renewal program for exclusive travel companies, and notified exclusive travel agents of the 2013 evaluation standards for the renewal program, which consisting of "induce of attracting, financial soundness, compliance with the legal system, and high added value, sales of tourist products, and government policy response as evaluation items. The Defendant continuously monitoring the results of the renewal program in 2013 and publicly notified that the results of attracting, product prices, administrative sanctions, history of sales of low-priced products, sales rate of high-priced products, etc. should be reflected in the evaluation of the renewal program conducted every two years. The Plaintiff was notified of the foregoing announcement, along with the fact that the Plaintiff was re-designated as a exclusive travel company on December 5, 2013.

② The evaluation criteria for the renewal system in 2016 are ‘induce of inducement, financial soundness, compliance with the legal system, and development of the tourism industry'. This is not much different from the evaluation criteria for the renewal system in 2013 or the standards set forth in Article 3-2 of the 2013 guidelines of this case. In the detailed evaluation items of the complex, the items about ‘the degree of participation in the electronic management system', ‘the degree of participation in the public offering award and the performance of agency commendation' are additionally reflected, and the evaluation by the administrative sanctions was added for reasons of revocation of the independent

③ On October 5, 2015, the Defendant, through the head of the Korea Tour Business Association, established an electronic management system for exclusive travel workers, including the Plaintiff, through the head of the Korea Tour Business Association, clearly stated that “in the case of performance records in 2014 and 2015, it is intended to utilize them for the evaluation of re-designation in 2015,” and thus, it is difficult to view that the establishment of an electronic management system would put the Plaintiff an unexpected disadvantage.

④ According to the Defendant’s evaluation criteria for renewal in 2013, at least 75 points out of 100 were eligible to be re-designated as exclusive travel agents, while the administrative sanctions were added to the evaluation criteria for renewal in 2016 on the basis of separate independent revocation of designation. It is recognized that the Defendant did not publicly announce them in advance. However, in light of the diversity and complexity of administration, the specific evaluation criteria, etc. for exclusive travel agents are within the scope of the Defendant’s wide discretion in order to rectify the issues arising from the business behavior of partial exercise, which is subject to the Defendant’s wide discretion, and to add the administrative sanctions to the assessment criteria that are to be used as a ground for revocation of designation. In light of the evaluation criteria for renewal in 2013, the number of administrative sanctions received for two years was reflected as one of the items for renewal evaluation, and the Plaintiff did not have the authority to publicly announce it in advance to the Plaintiff.

D. Whether substantial defects (a factual error and an error in calculation of evaluation score) are found

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Defendant, when evaluating the unit price for each person’s attraction against the Plaintiff, calculated the unit price for each person’s attraction in 2015 as KRW 67,149, but the number of price consistency assessment points based on KRW 67,149 was calculated as KRW 13,257, and the number of price consistency assessment points based on KRW 67,149 constituted five points out of KRW 10,000, but was assigned two points based on KRW 13,257. In addition, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of commenting on the portion not recorded in the electronic management system, and was subject to a disposition of entering the records in the electronic management system until February 29, 2016, and was subject to an allocation of 10 points for the evaluation points based on the electronic management system’s participation in the electronic management system’s performance report. However, the Defendant erred by granting three points out

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances recognized as above, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 22 and 23 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it cannot be deemed that there are substantive defects as alleged by the plaintiff. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit. ① The foreign currency sold by the plaintiff to the Industrial Bank of Korea from January 2015 to October 10 of the same year shall be total of KRW 1,109,971,438 [USD 95,723.23 (originalization: 109,076,620), CNY 4,340,03.21 (originalization:781,764,778), HK 1,492,00 (originalization:19,130,040) cannot be seen as being dedicated to the plaintiff's re-designation's evaluation of the total amount of foreign currency transactions, even if the plaintiff submitted such evaluation data to the Korea Tourist Association for 2016.

② On October 5, 2015, the Defendant explicitly stated that, through the head of the Korea Tour Business Association (the Plaintiff) established a "Electronic Management System" for exclusive travel workers, including the Plaintiff, to enter the results of each company in 2014 and 2015, “the expected to be used for the evaluation of re-designation in 2015,” and provided several public announcements and education for exclusive travel workers, including the Plaintiff, for the purpose of establishing the above electronic management system by providing information on the items to be renewed and the matters to be observed in the evaluation index, including the entry of the results of the electronic management system, through a briefing session, etc.

③ In consideration of the fact that the average performance report rate of 70% or more, which was 73% or more of the average performance report rate, entered by a full-time tourer up to February 15, 2016, which was 2015, the period for closing the performance report on the performance of November 2015, the Defendant granted 5 points if the performance report was not made due to the lack of the participation rate of at least 10, 50% or less than 50% but less than 6 points, and 3 points if the performance report was not made due to the lack of the participation rate of at least 30% in November 2015. Since the Plaintiff registered a total of 71 QR code, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant calculated the performance report rate of at least 3 points as the total performance report rate of the Plaintiff’s participation in the electronic performance management system for the period of 215 percent or less as of February 15, 2016.

(4) In light of the diversity and complexity of administration, the Defendant has broad discretion to allocate specific points on the criteria for assessment, such as price convergence items, to the Defendant, and further designation of exclusive travel agents constitutes a beneficial administrative act that is granted rights or status for a certain period of time from the Defendant. The Defendant’s establishment of evaluation criteria requiring certain qualifications necessary for the maintenance of its status, and review the performance of a certain period of time, and review the results of the performance of a certain period of time, and then operates a renewal system that deprives of its rights or status to a company which falls short of

(e) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused;

1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The Defendant issued the instant disposition in accordance with the instant guidelines, etc., in which the evaluation criteria are very ambiguous and the rationality of evaluation items cannot be recognized. The Plaintiff’s disadvantage due to the instant disposition is very uncertain and direct, and it is difficult to expect a very uncertain and direct effect compared to that of the Plaintiff’s disadvantage. Therefore, the instant disposition is unlawful in deviation from and abuse of discretion

2) Determination

Although there was no particular defect at the time of the disposition, and there was no separate legal ground for the withdrawal of the disposition after the disposition, the disposition agency may withdraw the disposition by a separate administrative act which would lose its validity where there was a change in circumstances that make it unnecessary to continue the original disposition, or where there was a need for important public interest. However, where the disposition of profit is revoked or withdrawn, it would infringe on the people's vested rights. Thus, even if there is a reason for revocation, the exercise of the right of revocation, etc. is determined by comparing and comparing with the disadvantage suffered by the other party only when there is a need for important public interest to justify the infringement of the vested rights or when it is necessary to protect the interests of a third party, and where the disadvantage suffered by the other party is greater than the need for public interest, it is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10251, 10268, Nov. 26, 2004).

In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the disposition of this case was in violation of the discretionary authority, in light of the health care room and the overall purport of the pleading. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① The exclusive travel agent system is operated on the basis of the instant visa and the instant guidelines for the purpose of facilitating the development of tourism between the two countries by promoting in a sound and orderly manner the Korean organizations tourism of Chinese people. The exclusive travel agent system is recognized as legitimate for its purpose and means to maintain and manage qualifications for exclusive travel events above a certain level.

② Specific evaluation criteria, etc. for the renewal system of exclusive travel workers are matters falling under the Defendant’s wide width. The Defendant appears to have allocated 15 points, which are relatively high in the degree of participation, for the purpose of establishing an electronic management system as part of the government’s e-mail for the establishment of efficient and systematic tourism system as part of the government’s e-mail for the purpose of establishing the e-mail system. Moreover, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s granting a relatively large number of points to the exclusive travel workers, while evaluating the price consistency, is aimed at eradicating the abnormal commercial activities depending on the fees through excessive shopping, by having them receive sufficient ground expenses from Chinese travel agents, so it is difficult to deem that such evaluation criteria are significantly unreasonable. The three exclusive travel business associations, etc. have reported the three exclusive travel events to eradicate these illegal activities. Since the instant disposition only cancelled the designation of the Plaintiff’s exclusive travel business operator, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff is not subject to any restriction in the performance of ordinary travel business (the Plaintiff’s operation of the dedicated tour business operator is not any disadvantage compared with the Plaintiff’s operation of the order of this case).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Jin-hee

Judges Lee Jae-chul