Korea Tourism-Free Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hyeong, Attorney Cho Jae-in, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14488 decided May 2, 200

Jeonbuk-gu Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

LLC LLC (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Kim Young-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 1, 2015

Jeonju District Court Decision 2014Guhap875 Decided April 15, 2015

1. The appeal by the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant against the Defendant is dismissed.

2. The Intervenor joining the Defendant bears the costs of participation in the litigation costs after the appeal, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of approving modification of each passenger transport business plan against the Intervenor joining the Defendant on August 12, 2013 (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments, and thus, this Court’s reasoning is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the intervenor's motion to intervene in the case is legitimate;

We examine the legitimacy of the Intervenor’s motion to intervene in the trial of the Seoul High Court.

In order to intervene in a specific litigation case in order to assist one of the parties, there must be an interest in the result of the relevant lawsuit. The term "interest" refers to a legal interest, not in fact, economic or emotional interest, and it refers to a case where the judgment is subject to res judicata or executory power of the relevant lawsuit, or where the judgment does not directly affect the effect of the relevant lawsuit, it refers to a case where the legal status of a person who intends to participate in an assistance is determined at least on the premise of the judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da19156, Apr. 26, 2007, etc.).

According to the records, the intervenor 1) newly established on March 20, 2015, and transferred an express-type bus transport business from the Jeonbuk-gu Terminal Co., Ltd. (a corporation whose trade name was changed on March 13, 2015) to the defendant, and reported the transfer or acquisition of passenger transport business by the defendant, and the above transfer or acquisition of passenger transport business by the defendant, and reported the transfer or acquisition of passenger transport business from the defendant. Further, the intervenor filed a report on the transfer or acquisition of the transport business with the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport after the transfer or acquisition of the express-type bus transport business from the Jeonbuk-gu Terminal Co., Ltd., and the above transfer or acquisition of the transport business from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the part of the intervenor obtained the above transfer or acquisition of the transport business and the license for passenger transport business from the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. According to the above recognition, the intervenor's above transfer or acquisition of the passenger transport business from the Jeonbuk-gu Terminal, which became legitimate in the operation of the plaintiff.

3. Additional determination of the Intervenor on the defense of this safety

A. The intervenor's defense of this safety

On July 18, 2000, the Plaintiff received a disposition to authorize the alteration of passenger transport business plan from the Defendant to the Incheon International Airport to extend the closing point of the former route of “Neju-Yansan International Airport” to the Incheon International Airport on three occasions a day. In accordance with the Plaintiff’s assertion, the said route constitutes a high-speed cross-city bus route under the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Act, and thus, the said disposition to authorize the alteration of the transport business plan was made by the Defendant without authority despite being reserved to the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and thus, the Plaintiff has no legal interest to seek the revocation of the instant disposition.

B. Determination

Even if a third party is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, if the legal interests protected by the pertinent administrative disposition are infringed, a revocation lawsuit shall be instituted, and the legal interests in this context refer to cases where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du28704, Dec. 11, 2014). The Plaintiff is operating the above routes until now after obtaining authorization for the change of the above passenger transport service plan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du28704, Dec. 11, 2014). As long as the above authorization disposition is not revoked, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff is running the passenger transport service with a limited license for the passenger transport service in accordance with the Passenger Transport Act, and it is anticipated that the Plaintiff’s profits will decrease due to the instant disposition due to the competitive relationship with the intervenors, and therefore, there is

4. A portion written additionally in the judgment of the court of first instance

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following is added to the 12th page No. 11.

D) In addition, the intervenors asserts that the disposition of this case cannot be deemed unlawful, considering the situation in which the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport does not actually issue an approval for modification of the business plan among the city bus routes operating with the national city/Do and Incheon International Airport at the starting point or terminal, and the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport does not issue an approval for modification of the business plan pursuant to Article 8 (1) 2) 6 of the Work Procedure, considering the situation where the Minister does not actually issue an approval for modification of the plan for the passenger bus transport business, since the defendant is not the authorized authority for the first and second routes, the defendant cannot be deemed illegal. However, even if the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport did not issue an approval for modification of the business plan for the passenger bus routes operating with the Incheon Airport at the starting point or terminal point, it cannot be deemed that the authority to approve modification of the business plan was delegated to the Mayor/Do Governor. Furthermore, Article 8 (1) 6 of the above Work Procedure cannot be deemed to have been excluded from the scope of the new construction and license for the express bus and operation system.

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following is added to the 14th page 9.

As seen earlier, it is necessary to consult with the relevant Metropolitan City Mayor in principle in the case of the modification of the business plan concerning the matters related to routes extending over the Metropolitan City among urban bus transportation business pursuant to Article 5 (1) 2 (b) of the above Enforcement Rule. However, even in the case of the modification of the business plan related to routes extending over the Metropolitan City, in the case of the modification of the business plan concerning the modification of the business plan, it is reasonable to interpret that the modification of the business plan is subject to consultation with the relevant City Mayor and Do governor (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du8351, Mar. 24, 2006, etc.). It is reasonable to interpret that the instant disposition should go through consultation with the relevant City Mayor and Do governor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du8351, Mar. 24, 2006). The instant disposition constitutes the case of the modification of the business plan plan with the contents of the modification of stopping located within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan City as it excludes from the route

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the appeal by the defendant and the defendant joining the defendant limited liability company against the defendant is dismissed on the grounds of its ground, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)

1) The former Defendant’s Intervenor’s former Defendant’s Intervenor’s motion to intervene in the trial was withdrawn, and the former Defendant’s former Defendant’s motion to intervene in the trial was a newly established legal entity.

2) Article 8 (Approval and License of Intercity Buses) (1) of the Work Process Guidelines (Approval and License of Intercity Buses) (in the event that a new construction of route and operation system of intercity buses falls under any of the following cases, he/she may be excluded from those subject to authorization and license. 6. A change in a project plan that does not have a terminal under Article 36 of the Act or exceeds the appropriate level of capacity to expropriate and dispose of a terminal;