2012Guhap2595 Disposition of revocation of a non-acceptance of a change in passenger transport plan

A Stock Company

diversity of representative director B

Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Changwon Market

Law Firm Jina, Attorney Park Young-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

December 6, 2012

January 3, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of non-acceptance of a change in passenger transport service plan on December 28, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a passenger transport service provider who commenced the transport according to the transport service plan using 7 buses on June 29, 2001.

나. 원고는 2011. 12. 22. 피고에게 '창원시 마산회원구 구암동에 있는 3.15 묘역 입구↔합성동 덕재 입구 ↔ 합성 18길 입구 ↔ 성진아파트 ↔ 경남혜림학교 ↔ 마트 앞 ↔ 경남은행 ↔ 동마산시장 ↔ 우리누리 앞 ↔ 삼성병원 앞을 순환하는 마을버스 노선(이하 '이 사건 노선'이라 한다)을 신설하고, 예비차량 2대를 상용차량으로 전환한다.'는 내용의 여객 자동차 운송사업 계획변경등록 신청을 하였다.다. 이에 대하여 피고는 2011. 12. 28. '이 사건 노선과 상당 부분 중복되는 시내버스 노선 신설을 추진 중이고, 원고의 예비차량 2대를 상용차량으로 전환하면 예비차량 이 부족하게 되며, 여객자동차 운수사업법령에 따르면 마을버스 노선 설치에는 일정한 제약이 있고, 피고로서는 비효율적 버스 노선이 설치됨에 따른 불필요한 환승 유발을 억제할 필요가 있으며, 대형 시내버스 운행이 어려운 구간은 소형 시내버스를 이용해 운행이 가능하므로 마을버스 노선은 새로 만들 필요가 없다.'는 취지로 원고의 신청을 불수리하는 이 사건 처분을 하였다.

D. Although the Plaintiff applied for a ruling seeking revocation of the instant disposition to the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission, the said commission made a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s application on April 26, 2012. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, the entries in the evidence Nos. 13 and 14, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant should decide to newly establish the village bus route in the direction of providing residents' transportation convenience to the maximum extent through smooth passenger transportation administration, taking into account the distance to be moved to the Do through which the residents use the route (city bus), the destination to be moved to the Do, the connection between the route to be moved to the Do, and the route to be operated, and in order for the residents to use the existing bus route, 30 to 1 hour must go to the 30 minutes. While the defendant newly established the village bus route, the freight of the village bus is 950 won, but the freight of the city bus is 1,100 won, and the bus freight is 1,100 won, which is the new establishment of the route of the city bus, the bus route of this case is an apartment densely concentrated area. In light of the fact that the starting point and the end point of the route of this case overlap with the existing bus section is inevitable to connect the existing area with the apartment area, the disposition of the village bus that refuses to use the new bus is unlawful, without considering the discretionary power of the village residents.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) Whether a village bus transport business license is granted is an area requiring technical and professional judgment regarding the traffic demand, route determination, transport capacity, supply capacity, etc. of the business area. The administrative disposition pertaining thereto shall be based on the standards that meet the specific feasibility in order to realize public interest through the transportation administration as well as to pursue the unity of the purpose. Thus, within such scope, unless otherwise prescribed by the law, it shall be deemed that it belongs to the administrative agency’s discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10028, Jun. 28, 2002). Article 3 subparag. 1 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24197, Nov. 23, 2012); Article 8(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides that, in principle, it shall be deemed that a village bus transport business entity’s operation of an apartment complex, industrial complex, school, religious organization, etc., which is difficult for another route transport business entity to serve as an existing route or town.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions or video images and the entire purport of pleading as follows, as to the instant case, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 19, Eul evidence Nos. 20-1 and Eul evidence Nos. 20, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 20-2, the route of the instant case applied by the Plaintiff goes beyond the function of a village bus assistance or a connected means of transportation, and some sections are deemed inappropriate in their operation. Thus, the instant disposition is against the equity of, or is deemed unlawful

○ The Plaintiff is a village bus business operator operating 18 buses (15 buses for commercial use, 3 reserve buses) on the current four routes, and if two reserve buses are habitually converted, 17 reserve buses are merely one unit, and it seems difficult for the Plaintiff to respond appropriately to the accidents and breakdown of the commercial bus.

○ 2012. 3. 9.부터 270번 시내버스가 신설 시내버스노선('성진아파트 ↔ 강남맨 션↔삼성병원↔팔용 교육단지↔양덕초교 마산역↔합성동')을 운행하고 있다. 그런데 이 사건 노선의 버스정류소로 예정되어 있는, 경남혜림학교로부터는 약 500m 거리 안에 두 곳의 신설노선 버스정류소가 존재하고 있고, 합성초등학교로부터는 약 300m 거리 정도에 한 곳의 신설노선 버스정류소가 있으며, 합성시장길의 정류 소로부터는 약 300m의 거리에 신설노선 버스정류소가 있고, 이 사건 노선의 버스정류소와 겹치거나 겹치지는 않더라도 아주 가까운 거리에 있는 신설버스정류소가 5곳(갑 2호증 참조)에 이르는바, 이 사건 노선이 신설되지 않더라도 주민들의 대중교통 이용에는 큰 불편이 있을 것으로 보이지 않을 뿐만 아니라, 이 사건 노선은 기존 시내버스 노선과의 연결을 목적으로 하는 마을버스 운영의 취지에 반한다고 보인다.

○ Article 5(3) of the Ordinance on the Limited License for Gyeongnam-do Passenger Transport Business and the Registration, etc. of Village Bus Transport Business provides that, where a village bus stops are installed in the operation system of route passenger transport business, it shall be not more than four places. As such, since there are five new bus stops located in the nearest distance of A, even if the bus stops overlap or overlap with the bus stops on the route of this case, the route of this case is contrary to the above Ordinance.

A large number of vehicles parked and stopped on the roadsides of the synthetic North 1, synthetic North 2 roads, and synthetic market paths included in the instant route are difficult to drive the vehicle, and pedestrians are also likely to cause traffic congestion and accidents.

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge shall be appointed from among the judges;

Judges Jeon Soo-tae

Judges Park Jong-dae