logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.06.23 2015구합1301
과징금부과처분무효확인 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 12, 1996, the Plaintiff is a passenger transport business entity that obtained a limited license for cross-city bus transport business (limited to the scope of business to be a policyholder using an airport of an overseas travel business) under Article 4(3) of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”) and Article 17(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act from the Defendant on December 12, 1996, and is operating an airport bus on the route of Incheon International Airport via the Basan Airport, Gan International Airport.

B. From December 96, 1996, the Plaintiff leased part of the parking lot of the shuttle hotel from the Jeonju Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Copy hotel”) and used it as the starting stop of the airport bus, around December 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the land of 459-4 Geumjin-gu, Geumjin-gu, Seoul, and newly constructed the airport bus stop on that ground. On June 9, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted a report on modification of the passenger transport business plan (hereinafter “instant report”). The Plaintiff submitted a report on modification of the passenger transport business plan (hereinafter “instant report”).

On June 9, 2014, the bus union rejected the report on the ground that the change of the name and location of the bus stop to the plaintiff is a change of the starting point and the end point of the route, and therefore the change of the business plan of the bus union is authorized by the competent administrative agency, which is not subject to the report acceptance.

C. On June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for authorization to amend the passenger transport business plan with the same content as the instant report, and the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for authorization.

Since June 16, 2014 to May 7, 2015, the Defendant operated the route with a total of five times from June 16, 2014 to the Plaintiff by changing the starting point to a Comtory hotel.

arrow