2012Guhap2580 Revocation of revocation of a license for marine passenger transportation services

1. Do elementary agricultural cooperatives;

2. An Ansan Agricultural Cooperative;

3. Non-agricultural cooperatives;

Head of Mapo regional Maritime Affairs and Port Office

Limited Partnership Company Bapool Bank

March 7, 2013

April 18, 2013

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiffs on March 12, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Acquisition of limited licenses for marine passenger transportation services by the plaintiffs

(1) The plaintiffs are the regional cooperatives organized by farmers residing in the front Do, Ansan-si, and Geum-do (hereinafter individually referred to as "the plaintiff's first agricultural cooperative," "the plaintiff's agricultural cooperative," "the plaintiff's non-agricultural cooperative," and "the plaintiff's non-agricultural cooperative," respectively. The defendant is an administrative agency entrusted with the right to grant a license for the regular passenger transportation services within the Republic of Korea under Article 53 of the former Marine Transportation Act (amended by Act No. 11321, Feb. 17, 2012; hereinafter "former Marine Transportation Act"), Article 27 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Marine Transportation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24214, Nov. 30, 2012; hereinafter "former Enforcement Decree of the Marine Transportation Act").

(2) The Plaintiffs are running marine passenger transportation services with a limited license from the Defendant as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

B. On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs applied for the plaintiffs' license for marine passenger transport services and the defendant's disposition (1) against the plaintiffs (hereinafter "application for each license of this case"). The application is identical to the above table ("general license for marine passenger transport services" hereinafter) except that the plaintiff can provide transportation services to all passengers and motor vehicles by eliminating the conditions of the license regarding the scope of the business. (2) The defendant on March 12, 2012, "(1) the service route applied by the plaintiffs (hereinafter "applicant's application route") is called "do first route, Do second route, and non-regular route," and the plaintiff's application for each of the above service routes (hereinafter "each application route of this case") is no more than the average of the service routes of the existing marine passenger transport service providers (hereinafter "each application route of this case") and the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transport Act is no more than 5 percent of the cargo transport service route of this case (hereinafter "the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transport Act").

【Fact that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The respective license term of this case is not a new general license term, but a new general license term of the Plaintiffs changed the terms and conditions of the license under the Business Act among the contents of the limited license previously possessed by the Plaintiffs, and changed to a general license. Therefore, it is unlawful to apply the transport demand standard for the application of a new general license in determining the criteria for each of the instant licenses applications.

(2) In light of the fact that the average shipping rate of 25% as stipulated in Article 4(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act is too high, thereby undermining fair competition and preventing traffic rights from being guaranteed to the extent that it infringes on the residents’ right to life and right to life in island areas, it is unlawful to have exceeded the limit delegated by the former

(3) In calculating the average transportation revenue rate pursuant to Article 4 [Attachment 1] of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, the Defendant met the transport demand and the standard of each application of this case in case of calculating the average transportation revenue rate in a proper manner as prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Each application of this case shall be made from the port of departure. All of the service routes of this case shall be made from the port of departure, and it shall be made possible to substitutely adjoining the adjacent islands to the geographically as the final destination of the Dondo, Dondo, and Dondo, which are the adjacent islands, with the geographically adjacent routes. Therefore, they shall be deemed to be the same route as each other. However, even if the Defendant considers the Doncho and the Dondo as the service route like the Don-si Dondoi-si Hongdo, in calculating the average transportation pressure rate, only the revenue rate of the Dondo's Yido - So calculated separately.

The average passenger and freight revenue corresponding to the part of the average transport revenue rate shall also include the Plaintiffs' limited license marine passenger transport service performance in the last three years.

(D) According to the attached Table 1 of Article 4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, the average transport rate is calculated as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

YP: Average YP for the last three years of the same service route: Average cP for each passenger per passenger of the same service route as of the date of application for a license: Average cP for passenger transport capacity as of the date of application for a license; Average cccP for passenger transport capacity as of the date of application for a license: Average cP for annual passenger transport capacity of the passenger ship as of the date of application for a license: Annual average cP for scheduled passenger transport capacity of the passenger ship for the last three years: Average cP for the latest three service days of the existing service days of the passenger ship for which an application for a license was filed (CP = average number of navigation days of the existing service days of the passenger ship x X): Average cc for the latest three service days of the existing service days of the ship, calculated average cP for the number of scheduled service days of the existing service days of the passenger ship for the last three service days of the previous service days of the cP calculated based on the average cP for the first three service days of the existing service days of the passenger ship: The average c.

(1) According to Article 8 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, if a trucking business operator with excellent customer satisfaction rating applies for a new general license, the Defendant did not take any preferential measure against Plaintiff Do Agricultural Cooperative selected as a trucking business operator with excellent customer satisfaction rating.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier by Articles 4(2) and 5(2) of the former Marine Transportation Act, and Article 3(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, the Plaintiffs’ limited licenses are mitigated in order to ensure smooth transportation of agricultural, livestock, and water products in island areas, but they are separate licenses from general licenses. Thus, it is reasonable to regard the Plaintiffs’ respective applications for licenses as new general licenses, and to review whether they conform to the criteria for transportation demand and transportation. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion is without merit.

(2) As to the second argument by the plaintiffs, Article 5 (1) of the former Marine Transportation Act only requires the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs to set the criteria for transport demand, and without any specific restriction on the details of transport demand criteria, leaves them to a wide range of discretion by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. In light of the fact that it is necessary to preserve certain profits for a marine passenger transport service provider to provide minimum marine transport services to residents in island areas. In light of Article 4 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the

In order to determine whether the transport demand is met, it cannot be deemed that the determination that the average transport rate of all the existing passenger ships during the last three years exceeds 25/100 including the passenger ships of the relevant maritime passenger transport business, which are newly applied for a license does not exceed the limit delegated by the former Marine Transport Act.

(3) As to the third argument of the plaintiffs

(A) According to Article 2(1) and (2) of the Public Notice on Coastal Transport (No. 2011-28 of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs’ Notice, Jan. 31, 201, hereinafter “the Notice”), each of the instant ports is the same sea route, and the same sea route under the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transport Act means the case where (i) the whole or part of a port area is geographically adjacent to the port area, and (ii) the condition that the main user of the relevant passenger ship is likely to overlap or overlap, and (iii) the said requirement is satisfied when the port area is located within the same administrative area (based on the basic local government), but it is deemed that the port area is satisfied, in consideration of the distance between the port area and the port area, road conditions, etc., if alternative use is possible even if it is not within the same administrative area, it shall be deemed the same sea route, and if it is difficult to use it as a substitute even if it is within the same administrative area, it shall not be deemed the same sea area.

In other words, the starting point of each of the service routes of this case is the same as the Northwest-gun, which is the same administrative district, and the Do-si and the Do-si are established in the same administrative district, and the distance of both branches is about 13.6 km, if they move to the land, about 20 km, it is necessary to use it as a car, and it is possible to use it as a substitute for the Do-si and the Do-si. On the other hand, as the living route of the Do-si and the Do-si are expected to overlap or overlap with the main users. On the other hand, it is difficult to use it as a substitute for the Do-si, which is the same administrative district, but it is difficult to use it as a Do-si and the Do-si, which is the same administrative district. In light of the fact that it is difficult to use it as a Do-si and the Do-do-do-si route and the Do-do-si route cannot be viewed as a Do-do-do-do.

1) Facts of recognition

A) At the time of each disposition of the instant case, the Defendant determined each of the following routes as the same route as the navigational sea route and the non-useal sea route.

A person shall be appointed.

B) The share of a person who uses a wooden range from 11.7% to 11.7% and the income share of a person who uses a wooden range from spores to spores (manies) to spores (manies) to spores (manies) to spores (manies) to spores (manies) to spores (inspores) to spores (inspores) to spores (inspores) to spores (inspores) to spores (inspos

The transportation performance of the wooden Dog-dog-dog-dog-dog-dog-dog-dog-dog-dog-dog-dog-dog-do, and the main users of some of the above sections are expected to overlap or overlap with the main users of the Dog-do and the non-dog-dog-dog-do-do. For this reason, only the profits of the above sections were separated and reflected

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 7-1 to 6, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2) Determination

According to Article 2 (1) of the Notice of this case, the same route of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act refers to a case where the main user of the relevant passenger ship satisfies all the conditions that the main user will overlap or be expected to overlap with each other, the same route of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act refers to a case where the main user of the relevant passenger ship will be able to substitute with adjacent each other. Thus, it is reasonable to regard only the first section of the woodbin Do of the woodban-do as a route of the Doi-do and the Doi-doi-doi-doi-doi-doi-doi-doi-doi-

The judgment on the assertion that the plaintiffs' limited license for marine passenger transportation services should also be included in the part of the average transport revenue rate, and that the calculation of the factors to be included in the average transport revenue rate was erroneous.

In light of the calculation of each element claimed by the plaintiffs as erroneous in the part of the average transportation revenue rate, including the plaintiffs' limited license for marine passenger transportation services, and the calculation of each element claimed by the plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs, the average transportation revenue rate does not exceed 21% (No. 10-1), and 15.3% (No. 10-2) in the case of the navigation route and the navigation route, and the average transportation revenue rate does not exceed 25% under Article 4(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

According to Article 9 of the former Marine Transportation Act and Article 8 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, where a new marine transportation business license is granted to a business operator with excellent customer satisfaction rating, preferential measures such as granting priority or additional points may be taken. However, when granting a license for a new marine transportation business, it shall meet the transport demand standard under Article 5 (1) 1 of the former Marine Transportation Act, and the fact that the plaintiff Dong did not meet the above transport demand standard is as seen earlier. Thus, even if the defendant did not take any preferential measure against the plaintiff Dong in relation to the disposition of this case, it shall not be deemed unlawful. Accordingly, the plaintiff Dong's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, Kim Jae-young

Judges Hong Young-jin

Judges Park Young-young

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.