1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs passenger transport business with its head office located in the Sinnam-gun, and the Defendant’s assistant intervenor is a company that runs passenger transport business with its head office located in the Gyeongnam-gun.

B. On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for authorization to alter the transport business plan to the effect that the route from Seoul (Seoul) to that to that to 3-13 “Seoul (Snam Terminal)” (hereinafter “instant route”) is operated three times a day. On March 31, 2014, the Plaintiff changed the transit space and the terminal development to the instant route, as indicated below, and changed the transit space from that to that of Seoul (Seoul) to that of “Seoul (Snam Terminal)” to “the instant application for change of route” (hereinafter “instant application”).

Seoul (Seoul (Seoul) Highway, Daejeon-Sick), Sick, and (88 Expressway) after changing every day on 3 September 3, 314 to develop the Seoul (Seoul) Highway (Seoul) Highway, Daejeon-Sick), 303.7 3.7 3

C. On April 17, 2014, as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 78(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter “Act”), the Defendant requested consultation with the relevant Do Governor ( Gyeonggi-do, Chungcheongbuk-do, Chungcheong-do, and Jeollabuk-do) that the instant route passes, as to the instant application, and presented his/her opinion to the Governor of the relevant Do, Jeollabuk-do, Chungcheong-do, and Chungcheong-do, and Gyeonggi-do.

Accordingly, on May 9, 2014, the Defendant filed an application for conciliation with the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport pursuant to the Plaintiff’s application for conciliation, and on November 10, 2014, the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport notified the Defendant of the decision that “to accept the present fare accepted in relation to the section from Seoul to Seoul, on condition that he/she shall apply the fare accepted at present” (hereinafter referred to as “instant conciliation decision”).

E. The Defendant’s assistant intervenor on November 17, 2014