beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. Attached Form 1 cross-city buses for the Defendant’s Intervenor on July 25, 2013.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The plaintiffs have a principal office in Busan City and operate the city bus Nos. 338, 138-1 (hereinafter referred to as the "city bus of this case") in Busan City as indicated below, and the defendant's supplementary intervenors (hereinafter referred to as the " intervenors") are freight trucking service providers operating the cross-city bus Nos. 338, 138-1 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-city bus of this case"), and the defendant's supplementary intervenors are freight trucking service providers operating the cross-city bus of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "non-city bus of this case") in the west-do as indicated in the table below.
The plaintiffs' service route operating company (number of 338 Dapo-dong) 338 Mapo-Mapo-dong (Sapo-dong), Busan Seopo-si bus terminal Mapo-si, the plaintiffs (7-13 Dopo-dong), 138-1 Gapo-dong (Sa-dong), (Sa-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si), and the plaintiff 11-20 Mapo-dong-dong-dong Passenger (11-20
B. Defendant’s disposition No. 1 dated November 4, 2010 (hereinafter “Defendant’s disposition No. 1”) against the Intervenor on November 4, 2010, the Defendant revised the passenger transport business plan (hereinafter “previous 1 disposition”) to the effect that, in addition to the condition that “the cross-country buses may not perform tickets and business activities in the sections of Busan, Seosan, Seosan, Seomban bus terminal - the new subway station, and may not get passengers to board and alight from the said sections,” the Defendant shall be deemed to have amended the passenger transport business plan (hereinafter “previous 1 disposition”) to ensure that the cross-country buses pass through the new subway station located in Busan, Seoyeong-dong (hereinafter “previous 1 disposition”).
(2) On June 9, 201, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the previous first disposition, and received the Plaintiff’s winning judgment (Seoul District Court 2010Guhap4153). The contents of the judgment are as follows: (a) the previous first disposition is in accordance with Article 78(1) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”); and (b) the Passenger Transport Service Act.