Han-jin Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han Man-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul Bus Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Gyeong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

April 29, 2005

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2003Guhap23622 delivered on April 29, 2004

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition that the Defendant rendered on July 14, 2003 that "the Governor of Jeollabuk-do rendered on October 2, 2002 that "the disposition of accepting a report on change in the plan for passenger transport business (airport bus) by the Plaintiff on October 2, 2002 shall be revoked."

1. Basic facts

A. On December 12, 1996, the Plaintiff, after obtaining a limited license for passenger transport business (airport bus) from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do branch, started from the former metropolitan hotel office, and operated the passenger transport business to shut down through the Incheon national bus supply port via HysanIC, Highway, 63 buildings, and Ganpo Airport. On October 2, 2002, the Plaintiff, on the part of the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, changed the location of the 63 building “63 buildings” to the 63th regular bus platform in the 63th regular bus platform in the building located in the Seoul Metropolitan City, Yeongdeungpo-do (hereinafter “Dong-dong parking lot”) at the 63th regular bus platform in the 63th regular road (hereinafter “west bus platform”). On the same day, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do accepted the said report on the same day (hereinafter “instant repair disposition”), and notified the Defendant and the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor of the instant repair disposition (hereinafter “Defendant passenger transport business operator’s bus stops”). However, after receiving the above license from the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant 21201”).

B. On December 30, 2002, the intervenor filed an administrative appeal to request the Defendant to revoke the repair disposition of this case via the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on December 30, 2002, and the Defendant rendered a ruling to revoke the repair disposition of this case on July 14, 2003 (hereinafter “instant ruling”).

The reason for the ruling of this case is that the change of the location of 63 buildings stops, which are reported by the Plaintiff to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, is not provided for in passenger transport service laws and regulations, and therefore, it should be viewed as authorized matters. The Governor of Jeollabuk-do, which did not make a decision on whether to approve the project plan after consultation with the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City before approving the change of the location of the bus stops, or after filing an application for the mediation with the Defendant, was unlawful

【Unsatisfy-satisfy-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-sat-s

2. The parties' assertion

The defendant and the intervenor asserted that the ruling of this case is lawful, and the plaintiff asserts that the ruling of this case is unlawful as follows.

A. The part concerning the principal claim on the instant judgment safety

(1) Eligibility for administrative appeals for the instant repair disposition

The plaintiff did not change the existing "63 building" bus stops to another place, but did not change only the specific platform within the same area within the meaning of the "63 building" bus stops, and the Governor of Jeollabuk-do accepted the report. As such, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do accepted the report. Thus, even if the plaintiff reported the change, it is merely a report on an act of fact, and it does not affect the rights and obligations of interested parties, such as the plaintiff and the intervenor, even if the Governor of Jeollabuk-do accepted the report, and therefore, it does not constitute an administrative appeal.

(2) The intervenor's eligibility for the administrative appeal applicant

On January 22, 2001, the Intervenor obtained a limited license for passenger transport business (airport bus) and passenger transport business plan (hereinafter referred to as “business plan”) from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on January 22, 2001, and the Intervenor’s routes overlap with the Plaintiff’s route, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor did not err by failing to hold consultation with the Governor of Jeollabuk-do having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s route in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and therefore, the Intervenor’s business is based on illegal administrative disposition. Therefore, the Intervenor’s business is based on illegal administrative disposition, and the Intervenor does not have a legal interest that may be infringed due to the instant repair disposition, and thus,

B. Part on the merits of the instant ruling

On December 30, 1997, the Plaintiff obtained lawful approval for the change of business plan from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, and filed a report on the change of the platform from the parking lot to the sub-building platform without the change of the stopping or operation system, and it is judged that, under the understanding of 63cc., a company managing 63 buildings in its premises, it was no longer possible to use the sub-building parking lot due to the circumstances of 63cc., and that the sub-building platform used by the Intervenor operating the same airport bus transportation business as the Plaintiff was located within the same place where the "63 buildings" stations are "63 buildings." Since the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, which has jurisdiction over the bus stops, has the obligation to allow the Plaintiff to use the sub-stop without the change of the stopping or operation system, it is unlawful for the instant ruling to be made on the ground that there was no obligation of Jeollabuk-do to consult in advance with the relevant Mayor/Do Governor. Therefore, the instant order was unlawful.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of limited licenses and modification of the business plan

(1) The Plaintiff (former trade name is the Korea Tourist Port Corporation and Korea Coast Guard Corporation) was originally a company that runs the general travel business with its principal office in 602-24, Seocho-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. On November 15, 1996, the passenger transport business was added to the purpose of business.

(2) On December 12, 1996, the Plaintiff obtained the following limited license and business plan from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do.

[Contents of Limited License]

The period of validity of the restriction on the scope of the limited license duties of paper cross-city bus transportation business (a contractor of an overseas travel enterprise) in the name of the ticket contained in the main sentence shall be determined by adding the license terms and conditions (not submitted for three years) on December 12, 1996 and December 11, 1999 (3 years).

【Contents of Authorized Project Plan】

본문내 포함된 표 기점 경유지 종점 거리 횟수 대수 비고 전주 코아호텔 익산IC, 고속도로 김포공항 275.0 10회 10대 ？

○ Name of bus stops and stops by operation system and distance between stops or stops

· Exclusiveju hotel (coop hotel) and jusanIC bus stops: 32.0km

· The IlsanIC bus stops and Kimpo (International Airport): 243.0km

○ Name and location of place of business and stopping or stopping place

· The place of business of Jeonju-si: the place of business of Jeonju-si Hotel-si, Jeonju-dong 627-3

The area of a stopping place shall be 45 square meters and one stop for a large bus;

· A stopping place for light oil: A stopping place for ISIC, ASY-dong, CY-dong, CY-gu, 309

The area of a stop shall be 50 square meters and one stop for a large bus;

· The business office of the Giman Airport: the business office of the Kimpo International Airport, the office of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 274

The area of a stopping place shall be 45 square meters and one stop for a large bus;

(3) On August 2, 1997, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the change of the business plan (the first change) from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do as follows. The reason was that: (a) around July 1997, for the smooth transportation of participants in international conferences held in Jeollabuk-do and foreign tourists, the number of times and hours of operation were extended; and (b) for the convenience of the tourists in Ireland located in Jeollabuk-do, it was an extension of the number of times and hours of operation; and (c) via the bus stops for

[The First Amendment]

본문내 포함된 표 기점 경유지 종점 거리 횟수 대수 비고 전주 코아호텔 익산IC, 고속도로, 고속도로 신갈 간이버스 정류장 김포공항 275.0 15회 10대 ？

○ Name of bus stops and stops by operation system and distance between stops or stops

· Exclusiveju hotel (coop hotel) and jusanIC bus stops: 32.0km

· The Highway bus stops x the expressway, the new bus stops: 175.0km

- Expressway bus stops and simplified bus stops and Kimpo (international airport): 68.0km

○ Name and location of the additional place of business

· A bus stops: A new bus stops, a temporary bus stops, and a new bus stops in Yong-si in Yong-si (sections)

The area of a stop shall be 50 square meters and one stop for a large bus;

(4) On December 30, 1997, the Plaintiff obtained from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do the authorization for modification of the business plan (the second modification) concerning the change of the intermediate stop area as follows (the location and size of the “63 building” indicated as the intermediate stop area was not specified) on the grounds that “the removal of unreasonable factors in the existing operation section and the provision of high-quality transportation services to the service provider” (the second modification was not specified). As to this, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do requested consultation on the change of the business plan to the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on December 13, 1997, but the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not request consultation on the change of the business plan. The Plaintiff did not request the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City

【Secondary Change】

Change of 10 intermediate stop places at 15 times in 275.0.0 15 times in 275.00 15 times in 275.0

(5) After that, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for modification of the business plan from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do on two occasions. Meanwhile, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do had the procedure of consultation with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do prior to the authorization for modification of the business plan on July 30, 1998.

[3.4]

On July 30, 1998, the number of the end points of the ticket at the stop point in the main sentence, and on July 30, 1998, the number of 40.2 km extended on July 30, 1998, the number of ending points of the ticket-based hotel IIC, hotel IIC, expressway, building Kimpo Airport, and 63 buildings Kimpo Airport for the extension of the reduction of 8 to 8:50.0.0 15: 2nd December 2, 2000 to GasanIC, Highway, 63 buildings, Kimpo Airport, 315.2rd on July 18, 200, the end point of which is extended to 40.2 km, 40.2 km on the expressway, expressway, marinaland, and Kimpo Airport, Kimpo Airport, 335.22nd December 22, 2005.

(6) From January 1, 1998 to June 63, 198, the Plaintiff operated a section between the Jeonju Pian hotel and Kimpo Airport, or the Incheon International Airport, and used the same parking lot in the premises of 63 buildings as seen earlier. On April 6, 2001, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to suspend the use of the above convenience parking lot from May 7 of the same year, and the Plaintiff began to use the above letter platform as a stop place from May 8 of the same year.

(7) The freight system applicable to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s passenger transport business is an intercity bus transport business, is, in principle, the freight system that differs from the transport charges depending on the nature and distance of the section. As of March 29, 2001, the Jeonjunsan ICT section and the Yangnan International Airport section are 69.19%/km, which is the distance fare of the bus’s package, and the f1.93%/km, which is the distance rate of the bus’s package. The f16,100 won (three hours and twenty minutes) for the f3 buildings in Jeonju and Seoul (three hours and twenty minutes) have been reduced to 15,00 won from March 30, 202, the Seoul International Airport section of 63 and 63,000 (1 hour, 63,000 won and 300 minutes of the building at present) have been granted to the same level as the 60% (60,000 won at present).

(8) From January 1, 1998, the Plaintiff transported the passengers who wish to use only the section of 63 buildings, Gimpo Airport and Incheon International Airport. The operation hours are 06:00 to 22:20,000 in substitution, 30 minutes a day from 06:0 to 24:0,000 to 30 minutes a day. The Plaintiff used riman buses (at least 340 m340, 28 seating capacity) and other companies (the company operating airport buses passing through rido, as seen in the front and rear), using 11,00 won (at least 12,00 won after April 23, 2003, referring to the Intervenor). The Plaintiff is distributed leaflets that the Plaintiff is receiving 6,00 won.

(b) Details of the intervenor's limited license and business plan;

(1) The Intervenor is a company that mainly provides passenger transportation services (city passenger transportation services) with its principal office in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 92, Songpa-gu.

(2) On January 22, 2001, the intervenor obtained the following limited licence and business plan from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor.

[Contents of Limited License]

In the table classification contents contained in the main sentence, the scope of business limited to the license for type passenger transport business, 1. Operation of two routes for airport buses: Gido and Mancheon International Airport 2. Fido and Mancheon International Airport 2. Fido: Fido and Mancheon International Airport 1. through Jindo and Mancheon International Airport 1. through 88 and the effective period of the license shall comply with the conditions of the license, operation and operation system, and stop at the designated bus stops.

【Contents of Authorized Project Plan (U.S.)】

본문내 포함된 표 기점 경유지(정류소) 종점 거리 횟수 운행시간 배차간격 대수 비고 여의도 여의도역, 63빌딩 인천신공항 115.0 48회 110분 20분 6대 ？

○ 63.Location of a 63 building stop

Right-hand: 50 Inndo-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government 2 Hado-dong

left-hand: front of the Jindo-dong 61 63 buildings in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

○ Place where a bus stops are installed

Right: Prior to the branch of Yongdo-dong 25 Korea Development Bank in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

left-hand: front of the Korea Stock Exchange in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

(3) The intervenor obtained on March 22, 2001 the following business plan modification authorization from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

The number of running hours at the end point of the string point (stoping point), the number of string point and the number of 20 minutes at the end point in the main sentence, and the 1string of 7 minutes at the 135.0 15-20-minuteed route of 150,000 for 20 minutes at the 20-day route of the 20-day route of the string hotel;

(4) Six passenger transport companies, including intervenors, voluntarily form the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Airport Bus Transport Business Consultative Council and jointly set up a stop in the authorized location on the approved business plan when preparing for the operation of airport buses (in a short run, it appears to be a stop permission or installation permission of the head of the Gu at the location of the stop, and an installation of an airport bus stop guidance board). The Guro-gu head of the Gu ordered that “it shall be installed accurately at the approved location, not attaching commercial advertisements, and the color shall avoid the color likely to cause confusion with road guidance signs” as matters to be observed by the head of Guro-gu at the time.

(c) Open port of provision of the Incheon State and land transportation measures for the defendant;

(1) On April 20, 200, in response to the open port of the Incheon International Airport on March 29, 2001, the defendant delivered the "Plan for Implementation of Measures for Land Traffic Access to Incheon International Airport" to each Mayor/Do Governor on April 20, 200 to facilitate smooth passenger transportation between Incheon International Airport and Incheon International Airport and each local city. The details of the plan are as follows: (a) the transportation means are prepared by the method of extending the route of urban buses (Seoul) and non-city buses (Seoul other than Seoul), or new licenses (airport buses) of passenger transport business (airport buses) with the Mayor/Do Governor as the end point of Incheon International Airport; (b) the type of transportation business, such as limited licenses, is to prepare and submit a bus route (draft) for each jurisdiction and submit it to the defendant by April 27, 200. On April 28, 200, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do submitted the plan for airport operation through the 19,000 Jeju International Airport on April 28, 20000.

(2) On May 17, 200, the Defendant held the working committee on land transport measures for Incheon International Airport in order to select the Incheon International Airport Access Route. According to the bus route (No. 40-5), 35 routes nationwide with the closing point of Incheon International Airport were determined to be 13 routes in Seoul, and 9 routes in Seoul, and the number of local cities was determined to be 13 routes in Seoul, and 9 routes in Seoul. Of which, on August 12, 200, the Seoul National Airport Service Act was established to provide the closing point of the cross-city bus route (the Plaintiff’s route) with the operation of the existing inter-city bus route (the Plaintiff’s route) to the Incheon National Office. On the other hand, the Seoul National Airport Service Act was established to provide the end point of the cross-city bus route (the Plaintiff’s bus route) to the new airport transport business operated by the Defendant, and it was adjusted to 1,000 local bus transportation business under the direct jurisdiction of the Seoul Metropolitan Government.

(3) On the other hand, the defendant, held on May 17, 200, through the meeting data of the working committee on land and transportation measures for the Incheon International Airport (No. 40 No. 2), confirmed the first route (a) through consultation of the working committee, and if the working committee does not hold consultation, it shall be decided in five months after deliberation by the Passenger Transport Business Coordination Committee, and the matters consulted by the working committee (or the Coordination Committee) shall be deemed to have gone through consultation and mediation procedures stipulated in Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, and notified each Mayor/Do Governor of the procedures for consultation with the relevant Mayor/Do Governor to be omitted. As seen above, the plaintiff obtained a revised business plan on July 18, 200, and the intervenor operated the routes to be the end point of each Incheon International Airport after obtaining a limited license from the city bus (airport bus) on January 22, 2001.

(4) On March 19, 2001, prior to the opening of the Incheon International Airport, the Defendant held the “Land Transport Measures Meeting, such as Incheon International Airport Buses,” in order to finally check the progress of implementation of bus transport measures that have been promoted during the period, and requested each Mayor/Do Governor to submit the route status (business name, major border maintenance, etc.) of the airport bus routes approved by each City/Do.

At the time, the airport bus routes consisting of 35 routes in Seoul and the Seoul metropolitan area and 8 routes in each region (electric poles, Chuncheon, nuclear poles, Cheongju, Daejeon, Cheongju, Cheongdo, Ondo, Mana), but the routes via leisure among 35 routes in Seoul and the Seoul metropolitan area were due to the intervenor's routes, and the routes via leisure among the local routes were due to the Plaintiff's fault.

Furthermore, among the local routes, the routes of passenger transport companies other than the plaintiff, other than the plaintiff, start from the local city and enter the expressway (e.g., border area, main circulation, sub-sections, etc.), and then allow the plaintiff to immediately pass through or directly pass through the Kimpo Airport or to provide Incheon city through the straight line without stopping at any other point in the middle. On the other hand, the plaintiff's route was allowed to pass through 63 buildings. Of the "Sacheon International Airport bus Route Operation System Guidance" (Evidence 14-13) prepared by the defendant as the reference material for the above countermeasures, the "Sagle name" column of the plaintiff's route "63 buildings."

D. The history of dispute between the plaintiff and the intervenor and the circumstances leading to the adjudication in this case

(1) As seen earlier, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do requested the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on April 26, 2001 and May 9 of the same year to hold consultations on the relocation of a stop to be used by the Plaintiff on two occasions. The head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on May 25 of the same year, which made it difficult for the Mayor/Do governor having jurisdiction over the location to install a stop for airport buses due to concerns over over excessive competition. Although the laws and regulations stipulate that the stop shall be the competent government office, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, without consulting with the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City at the time of approving the stop parking lot for 63 buildings in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do refused the request for consultations on the relocation of the stop to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do.

(2) On July 23, 2001, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do requested the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor to re-consultation on the transfer of 63 buildings stops to a leisure station while promising that "to not transport passengers coming from and going from the Dondo International Airport Sections, and to revoke the authorization of transportation charges of 63 buildings and 6,000 won on the 63th International Airport Sections already reported." However, on May 17, 2002, the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City requested the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office to thoroughly control the plaintiff's "stop-do stop and stop" of the plaintiff on May 25, 2002 and notified the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office, the competent authority, by detecting the plaintiff's bus's violation on May 25, 2002 and July 15, 2002, the head of the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office, the head of the Dong-gu Special Metropolitan City Office, which is responsible for providing the plaintiff's passenger bus bus terminals at Incheon.

(3) On the other hand, on August 1, 2002, the intervenor in competition with the plaintiff, who used 63 buildings and Incheon International Airport sections due to the plaintiff's use of the letter platform and the distribution of the advertising complex, requested the plaintiff to suspend the plaintiff's act of getting off or getting off passengers without obtaining legitimate permission for the installation of a bus stops. The plaintiff filed a civil complaint with the Board of Audit and Inspection, and on September 19 of the same year, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, upon which the complaint was transferred, notified the plaintiff on September 19 of the same year that "the plaintiff's stopping in front of 63 buildings is determined to be in conflict with the law, and the transit site among the existing authorized matters is scheduled to be changed from the parking lot of 63 buildings to the bus stops."

(4) On September 18, 2002, the Defendant respondeded to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do that it is desirable for the Governor of Jeollabuk-do to grant limited licenses for passenger transport business limited to operate the limited license within the scope consistent with the purport of the business plan modification authorization, etc. and to handle the problem of the relocation of the stopping in consultation

(5) However, on October 2, 2002, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s airport bus was unable to enter the premises of 63 buildings, the Plaintiff reported a change in the business plan to change the location of the bus stops from the Dong-based parking lot to the library platform. The Governor of Jeollabuk-do made the instant repair disposition on the same day, and the Intervenor filed an administrative appeal against the instant repair disposition, thereby making the instant decision.

E. Progress after the instant repair disposition was rendered

(1) On November 28, 2002, the defendant sent a public notice to each Mayor/Do Governor stating that "if a bus transport business plan and a business plan plan is simply passed through the related Do simply, it shall go through the consultation with the related Mayor/Do Governor (see Article 5 (1) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act), among the changes in the business plan related to the route extending to the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities, the route is newly constructed or extended and the route is located in the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities, or if the starting point or the end point is changed in the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities, or if a stop is newly constructed or altered due to a change in the passage point, it shall go through the consultation procedure with the related Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities (see Article 5 (1) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Rule of the

(2) On December 17, 2002, the National Ombudsman recommended the Governor of Jeollabuk-do to cancel the repair disposition of this case and issue an improvement order to return the place of stop to its original Dong parking lot. Accordingly, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do requested the Committee to review the case, but the said Committee dismissed the application for review. On January 24, 2003, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do requested the 63 ccti to allow the Plaintiff to use the 63 ccti parking lot of the 63 ccti building as a stop, but the 63 ccti refused it.

(3) Meanwhile, on April 4, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Defendant on the following grounds: “On January 22, 2001, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor did not pre-consult with the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, the competent authority of the Plaintiff’s route at the time of granting the Plaintiff’s limited license for airport buses and the business plan, and thus, the Intervenor’s approval for the Intervenor’s business plan was illegal; however, the Defendant dismissed it on June 23 of the same year, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against it, but the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed on April 14, 20

[In the absence of dispute over evidence, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4-1, 5-6, Eul evidence 5-1 through 5, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Gap evidence 9, 10, 13-1, Eul evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 10-1, 2, Eul evidence 11 through 19, Eul evidence 20-1, 21-2, Eul evidence 23 through 28, Eul evidence 30, Eul evidence 33 through 39, Eul evidence 40-1, 5-4, 41 through 44, 5-4, 5-1, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 5-1 through 4, 5-4, 5-1, 5-4, 5-4, 5-1, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 5-1

5. Determination

A. As to the eligibility for administrative appeal on the instant repair disposition

An administrative appeal is subject to a disposition or omission by an administrative agency. In this case, the term "disposition" means the exercise or refusal of public authority as an enforcement of law with regard to a specific fact by an administrative agency, and other corresponding administrative actions (Articles 2(1)1 and 3 of the Administrative Appeals Act). Thus, when an administrative agency has a duty to exercise public authority with regard to a specific fact, thereby infringing upon the rights or interests of the people by refusing the exercise of public authority, an administrative appeal may be filed against such disposition. Such a legal principle likewise applies to cases where an administrative agency has a duty to refuse the exercise of public authority, even if the administrative agency has a duty to refuse the exercise of

Article 11 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 655, Feb. 4, 2002; Act No. 6655, Jan. 1, 2003; hereinafter “the Act”) provides that, in principle, a transport business entity shall obtain authorization from the competent authority to revise a business plan, but the modification of a minor matter shall be replaced by a report to the competent authority. Article 32 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance No. 394, Feb. 28, 2004; hereinafter “Enforcement Rule”) lists minor matters to be reported to the competent authority, and further, Article 31 of the Enforcement Rule provides that a transport business entity shall submit a specified document or drawing for the modification of a business plan. Article 11(3) of the Act and Article 31(4) of the Enforcement Rule provides that an administrative agency’s rejection of a change of a passenger transport business plan shall not be an act of seeking the revocation of a change of a passenger transport business plan.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion that the repair disposition of this case is merely an act of fact and cannot be subject to administrative appeal is without merit (the plaintiff's report on the change of the bus stop of this case is not subject to the revised business plan, as seen in the front and rear).

B. As to the intervenor's standing to file an administrative appeal

Even if a third party, who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, is eligible to file an administrative appeal and obtain a decision on the propriety of the administrative disposition, and the benefit legally protected in this context refers to the direct and specific benefit protected by the law based on the relevant administrative disposition. Generally, in a case where the law, which is the basis of the beneficial administrative disposition such as a license, authorization, permission, etc., aims at preventing unreasonable management due to excessive competition among the pertinent business operators, the existing business operator who is engaged in a business after receiving the same type of beneficial administrative disposition such as a license, authorization, permission, etc., for another business operator, is eligible to seek the revocation of the relevant administrative disposition through an administrative appeal, even though it is not the counter-party to the relevant administrative disposition such as a license, authorization, permission, etc., granted to the relevant business operator (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4450, Oct. 25, 2002).

In this case, Article 6 (1) 1 of the Act provides that "the business plan shall meet the transport demand and supply of transport capacity in the relevant route or business area" as the licensing criteria for passenger transport business is to establish the order of passenger transport business and promote the comprehensive development of passenger transport business, thereby promoting public welfare and preventing in advance unreasonable management arising from competition between transport business operators at the same time. Meanwhile, Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act, Article 3 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18242 of Jan. 20, 2004; hereinafter "Enforcement Decree"), Article 7 (3) and (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act are the same in that the urban bus transport business (the intervenor's airport bus transport business) and the urban bus transport business (the plaintiff's airport bus transport business) belong to the passenger transport business by establishing the same operation system and belong to the passenger transport business.

In addition, according to the above facts, both the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s limited license for airport buses operation between each City/Do and Incheon International Airport, and the purpose of smooth transportation by domestic and foreign tourists using Incheon International Airport is to facilitate, and all the Plaintiff and the Intervenor use 28 high-class free buses for 63 and Incheon International Airport sections, and transport passengers using the 63 and Incheon International Airport sections (the overlap of the route occurs in this part). After the second revision of the business plan to make 63 buildings a non-stop-stop-stop-stop-stop-stop-stop-stop-si, the Plaintiff does not appear to have operated its business without filing an application for bus stop with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor Mayor, after the second revision of the business plan to make 63 buildings a non-stop-stop-stop-si stop and stop-si Incheon Airport, and there is no fundamental difference in operating hours depending on the difference in operating fees, the number of vehicles between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor, and there is no special circumstance to deem the Plaintiff to have been able to solely use the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s operating platform in this case.

The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff overlaps with the plaintiff's 63 buildings at the time of obtaining a limited license for airport buses from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City should have had prior consultation with the Do Governor having jurisdiction over the plaintiff's route, the approval of the business plan for the intervenor is illegal.

However, according to Article 70(1) of the Act and Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Rule, where the Minister of Construction and Transportation delegates his/her authority on the modification of a business plan to a Mayor/Do Governor, the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the passenger transport business shall consult with the “relevant Mayor/Do Governor” in advance when he/she intends to grant authorization on the establishment or modification of a route or on the modification of a business plan related to a route where the route extends over two or more Cities/Dos. According to Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Decree, the term “air route” means the section where a vehicle is to be operated on a regular basis. According to Article 3(1) of the Enforcement Rule, the City/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the location of the principal office of the transport business operator. In light of the legislative intent of the above provision of a license for passenger transport business, the obligation of consultation with the Mayor/Do Governor shall extend over the route beyond the scope of the Incheon Metropolitan City/Do Governor’s business plan, and it shall be interpreted that it is reasonable for the Mayor/Do Governor to establish the Incheon-do Governor’s first and second airport.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the merits

(1) Whether a change in the location of the stopping is reported

(A) According to Article 11(1) of the Act, when a person who has obtained a license for passenger transport business intends to change the business plan, he/she shall obtain authorization from the competent Mayor/Do Governor. However, when he/she intends to change minor matters as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may entrust part of his/her authority under the Passenger Transport Service Act to the association of passenger transport business operators. According to Articles 57 and 68 of the Act, with respect to the change of the location of a bus stop, the use of a bus stop due to the change of the route or operation system in the business plan of urban bus transport business and rural bus transport business is prescribed as minor matters to be reported to the competent Mayor/Do Governor, and it is not prescribed as minor matters to report the change of the location of a bus stop outside the jurisdiction among the business plan of urban bus transport business.

According to the above laws and regulations, although the modification of a business plan by a passenger transport business operator is in principle authorized by the competent Mayor/Do Governor, if it is required to obtain authorization from the competent Mayor/Do Governor, it may not facilitate the operation of passenger transport business. Therefore, it seems that the modification of a business plan takes effect by requiring the competent Mayor/Do Governor to report minor matters in lieu of authorization in order to promote the administrative convenience of the transport business operator and ease the administrative burden of the administrative agency. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that minor matters provided for in Article 32 of the Enforcement Rule are limited.

Therefore, unless a change in the location of a bus stop outside the jurisdiction of a bus transportation business entity is defined as a minor matter, it shall be viewed as a matter subject to authorization from the competent Mayor/Do Governor pursuant to the main sentence of Article 11 (1) of the Act.

(B) On this ground, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant repair disposition does not change the “63 building” itself, which is the stopping place for which the Plaintiff has already obtained approval of the business plan, but only changes the location of a specific platform within the scope of the identity of the stopping place, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a “change in the location of a stations”

① According to Article 2(5)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act, the term “air route” means a section where a passenger intends to regularly operate a motor vehicle; the term “air route” means a whole term referring to the starting point, route, and route from the starting point to the starting point, the number of flights, and the number of flights; according to Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Rule, the term “stop-stop-stop-stop-stop” means a place during which a passenger may take passengers or get off (On the other hand, it does not have the definition in the Passenger Transport Service Act but it is problematic in this case, according to Article 7(5)1 of the Enforcement Rule, the term “high speed among urban bus transport business means a stop at the roadside of the national expressway for the convenience of the users of national expressways and where the Minister of Construction and Transportation deems it necessary for the convenience of the users, and in light of the purpose of Article 7(5)1 of the Enforcement Rule, the term “stop-stop-stop-stop-stop-stop or parking point” means a regular or stop-stop-stop-stop-off.

(2) In addition, under Article 5 (1) of the Act and Article 10 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Rule, a person who intends to obtain a license for route passenger transport business shall attach a business plan and route map to the application for a passenger transport business license. According to Article 11 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Rule, a route shall include the name and location of a stop. According to Article 10 (3) 1 of the Enforcement Rule, a business plan shall include the operation system, the name of a stop by operation system and the distance between stations and stations by operation system, operation hours by operation system, etc.

③ Meanwhile, at the time when the Plaintiff obtained a limited license for airport buses and its business plan from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, or on August 2, 1997, the business plan, route map, etc. attached at the time when the Plaintiff obtained a revised approval for the first business plan on the grounds of the “change in light of the light of the maintenance” was specifically identified as the number and size of the bus stops to be used by the Plaintiff, the distance between stations, etc., and even when the Intervenor obtained a license for the limited license for airport buses and its business plan from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City or obtained a revised approval for the business plan after obtaining the authorization for the limited license for airport buses from the head of Mapo-gu Office, the Seoul Airport Bus Transport Business Council organized by the Intervenor, etc. was recognized as above.

④ In light of the aforementioned provisions and facts of recognition, in cases where a change in a route passenger transport business plan includes a change in the passenger transport business plan, starting point, terminal or intermediate stop, the right to authorize the change of the business plan or to order the improvement of the business plan is placed under the jurisdiction of the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the location of the principal office, but the right to jurisdiction over physical facilities such as the installation, closure, relocation and management of a stop or stop is placed under the jurisdiction of the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the location (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu16516, Feb. 23, 1996). Since a stop refers to a place where passengers board or alight automobiles used for passenger transport business, it does not cover a certain area as argued by the Plaintiff, and it is reasonable to view that it does not legally separate the name of a stop and stop from a new bus station under the premise that the change in the location of a stop and stop in the existing bus plan is not an unlawful change in the name of a new bus station under the jurisdiction of the Mayor/Do Governor.

(C) Therefore, the repair disposition of this case is erroneous in determining that it is a minor matter to be reported even though the location of the location of the place is modified, and there is a defect in its acceptance.

(2) As to the duty to implement the consultation procedure by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do

(A) Details of the relevant laws and regulations

According to Article 70 (1) of the Act, when the modification of a business plan of passenger transport business extends over two or more Cities/Dos, the related Mayors/Do Governors shall consult with the Minister of Construction and Transportation under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and when an agreement is not reached, the Mayors/Do Governors having jurisdiction over the urban bus transport business shall, when a route extends over two or more Cities/Dos, consult with the competent Mayors/Do Governors in advance: Provided, That under Article 5 (1) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Rule, where a route extending over two or more Cities/Dos, the Mayor/Do Governors having jurisdiction over the urban bus transport business shall consult with the competent Mayors/Do Governors in advance: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the modification of a business plan related to a route extending over the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities (excluding the case where a starting point or ending point is located in the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities by newly establishing or extending a route, or the case where a starting point or ending point is changed within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities concerned under Article 3 (b) of the same Act or the same Act.

(B) The meaning and interpretation of the consultation procedures and exceptions thereto

(1) The provisions of any Act allowing a higher-level administrative agency to delegate part of its authority to a lower-level administrative agency, and at the same time granting a duty to consult with regard to matters related to two or more lower-level administrative agencies, and the provisions of the procedure for consultation where a higher-level administrative agency provides for the procedure to coordinate disagreements among opinions, are to prevent any disturbance of administrative order due to any conflict of interests between lower-level administrative agencies or any difference in interpretation of the scope of authority, and to prevent any dispute between interested parties resulting therefrom, and at the same time, to prevent any infringement of the interests of the existing administrative agency by allowing a lower-level administrative agency to make

(2) In particular, since the purpose of the Passenger Transport Service Act is to promote public welfare by establishing order in passenger transport service and promoting the smooth transport of passengers and the comprehensive development of passenger transport service (Article 1 of the Act), one of the licensing standards for passenger transport business is to meet the transport demand and transport capacity supply of a route or business area concerned (Article 6 (1)), detailed licensing standards for transport demand and transport supply of each City/Do may be separately determined by the competent Mayor/Do Governor (Article 12 (3) of the Enforcement Rule). In such cases, it is anticipated that a bus transport business may operate a route outside the ordinary jurisdiction of another Mayor/Do Governor. In principle, it is easy for the Mayor/Do Governor to have the jurisdiction over the location of the main office of the passenger transport service, in principle, because the new bus transport business is likely to be operated by the Mayor/Do Governor after consultation with the competent Mayor/Do Governor on the new bus transport business (see Article 3 (1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act), while the Mayor/Do Governor has jurisdiction over the location of the new bus transport business after consultation with the competent Mayor/Do Governor's/Do Governor's.

③ However, in all cases where the routes of cross-city bus transportation business extend over two or more Cities/Dos, unnecessary administrative waste occurs in the course of consultation, and there may be rejection or delay of consultation arising from localism, and in particular, in the situation where most urban bus transportation business entities with the principal office in the Do obtain a license or modify a business plan with a business plan to operate routes extending over the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities, requiring the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu or a Metropolitan City Mayor to comply with the consultation of the competent Mayor/Do Governor in all cases, would seriously undermine administrative efficiency, so it would seriously undermine administrative efficiency so that it is not necessary to enforce the consultation and mediation procedures, and thus, it would be deemed that the purpose of legislation of the Passenger Transport Service Act would be consistent with the legislative purpose of the procedure of consultation. If the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, which has the exception provision, recognizes a wide range of exceptions not scheduled by the Act, it would be justified as it goes beyond the limit of delegated legislation and thus, the provision is null and void.

④ Therefore, considering that the above legislation on passenger transport service is aimed at holding consultations and conciliation procedures, and the need to maintain a balance between transport demand and transport capacity of the Special Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City, and the need to maintain a balance between transport demand of the Special Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City, and the transport capacity of the route from the operation of the route without consultation with the Special Metropolitan City Mayor/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City or mediation procedures, it is reasonable to interpret that “an alteration of the business plan related to the route beyond the Special Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City” under Article 5(1)2(b) of the Enforcement Rule is limited to “an alteration of the business plan related to the route beyond the Special Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City” excluded from “an alteration of the business plan related to the route beyond the Special Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City” (the same shall apply to the case where the defendant also changes the business plan related to the route to the former or the existing bus destination.

⑤ In addition, as seen in the above facts, the Plaintiff’s limited license is limited to limit foreign travel enterprises to passengers. In response to the open port of Incheon International Airport Traffic Measures, the Defendant, through the deliberation of the working committee for the Incheon International Airport Traffic Measures, comprehensively reviewed the transportation demand, etc. of the Incheon International Airport to the port of supply, had the Mayor/Do Governor authorize each City/Do Governor to approve the route of 35 Seoul and Seoul metropolitan areas, and 8 local airport buses. According to the Defendant’s plan, the Plaintiff’s route was extended from the original Kimpo Airport to the Incheon International Airport. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s route was extended to the original Kimpo Airport from the original port of Kimpo, Kimpo, Kimpo-do branch of Jeollabuk-do to the Plaintiff, while operating the convenience platform and 63 buildings and the 63,000 International Airport section, it would substantially go beyond the scope of the above limited license, and would be in violation of the Defendant’s efforts to reasonably provide the airport users with the convenience of Incheon International Airport, thereby promoting the function of the Incheon International Airport.

(6) Therefore, inasmuch as the change of the Plaintiff’s business plan subject to the instant acceptance disposition includes the change of the location of the stopping place within the jurisdiction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do did not consult with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor before making a decision on whether to accept the instant report, and thus, the instant acceptance disposition is unlawful

(C) During the deliberation process of the “Working Committee on Land Traffic Measures for Incheon International Airport Access” held by the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s business plan was deliberated upon by the Plaintiff’s bus stop at the “63 buildings” stop, and thus, the obligation to consult with the Governor of Jeollabuk-do should be deemed fulfilled. However, as seen in the above facts of recognition, each of the above Working Committees held on May 17, 200 and August 12, 2000, deliberated only on the extension of the end point of the existing route of the “Seoul-do Airport” to the Incheon State of Supply as submitted by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, and the Plaintiff’s bus did not have deliberated on the business plan stopping or transiting at the “63 buildings” stop. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the ruling of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Judge)