2014Guhap 11410 Action revocation of revocation of a license for passenger transportation services

Clean Shipping Co., Ltd.

Commissioner of the Regional Maritime Affairs and Port Office

November 27, 2014

January 15, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's revocation of the license for marine passenger transportation services shall be revoked on May 29, 2014 and May 30, 2014) by each leisure-a big port with respect to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff's status

The Plaintiff is a maritime passenger transport service provider. The Plaintiff is a maritime passenger transport service provider. The Plaintiff acquired a license for regular coastal passenger transport services in Incheon- Jeju service route, Incheon-Decree service route, and inn water-weak service route, and operated

B. On April 16, 2014, the occurrence of the sinking accident in the Sewol ferry and the revocation of the license for regular coastal passenger transportation services in the Incheon- Jeju-do route, where the Sewol ferry, which the Plaintiff operated on the Incheon- Jeju-do route, was sunken on the sea of the Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun. On May 12, 2014, the Administrator of the Incheon Regional Maritime Affairs and Port Office revoked the Plaintiff’s license for regular coastal passenger transportation services in the Jeju-do route on the ground that the Plaintiff violated Article 19(1)2 of the Marine Transportation Act.

On May 16, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on May 16, 2014 that the Plaintiff would cancel the license for regular coastal passenger transportation services in Incheon- Jeju-do service route on May 12, 2014, which falls under subparagraphs 5 and 6 of Article 8 of the Marine Transportation Act, and thus, the Defendant would cancel the license for regular coastal passenger transportation services in accordance with Article 19(2)2 of the Marine Transportation Act.

On May 29, 2014, the defendant notified the plaintiff that he would revoke his license for regular coastal passenger transportation services in the leisure-speak service route on the ground of Article 19(2)2 of the Marine Transportation Act (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, 3-1 to 3, and 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant statutes

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The license for marine passenger transport business for the reason under Article 8 subparag. 5 of the Marine Transport Act is required to be obtained for each sea route, and thus, each license is obtained and revoked for a separate reason. Since the license cannot be revoked again after one revocation, the reason under Article 8 subparag. 5 of the Marine Transport Act can not be a ground for disqualification in acquiring a license.

If the defendant interpreted it according to the logic of the defendant, if the marine passenger transportation service provider who has obtained a license for multiple service routes obtains a disposition of cancellation for one license, it would cause unreasonable results that all remaining licenses are subject to cancellation.

2) Article 8 subparag. 6 of the Marine Transportation Act provides that Article 8 subparag. 6 of the said Act provides that the representative of a corporation who falls under any of subparagraphs 1 through 5 shall be disqualified for a license. The Plaintiff’s representative is not a person falling under subparagraphs 1 through 5, but does not fall under Article 8 subparag. 6 of the said Act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 8 of the Marine Transportation Act provides that a person falling under any of the following subparagraphs is not eligible to obtain a license for marine passenger transport business, and Article 8 of the said Act provides that a person in whose case two years have not passed since the license for marine passenger transport business was revoked pursuant to subparagraph 5 and Article 19 of the said Act.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the meaning that if Article 19(2)2 of the Marine Transportation Act falls under subparagraph 5 of Article 8 of the same Act, the license shall be revoked shall be interpreted to mean that if two years have not passed since the license for a specific sea route owned by the maritime passenger transportation service provider was revoked, the license for all other sea routes owned by the service provider shall be revoked. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part is without merit.

1) In light of the fact that the grounds for disqualification stipulated in Article 8 of the Marine Transportation Act, excluding subparagraph 5, cannot be specified in the grounds for disqualification, and thus, it is inevitable to interpret the grounds for disqualification for all routes as the grounds for disqualification, it is difficult to view that only the grounds for disqualification prescribed in subparagraph 5 is limited to the revoked route.

2) ① If a license for a certain sea route is revoked for a reason of a violation of a duty under the Marine Transport Act, it may be deemed that the violation of such duty is grave, and there is a need for a marine passenger transport business operator not to engage in marine transport business for all routes when considering the risk of marine accidents. ② If a marine passenger transport service provider falls under any subparagraph of Article 19(1), Article 19(1) of the Marine Transport Act grants an administrative authority to the relevant passenger transport service provider discretion to select and dispose of one of the licenses or authorizations, suspension of business in whole or in part, or imposition of penalty surcharges, and thus, an administrative authority may decide whether to dispose of the license for a specific sea route, taking into account the cancellation of the license for another sea route, if the license for the license for the particular sea route is revoked, it cannot be deemed unreasonable for the legislative authority to stipulate that the license for all other sea routes should be revoked.

B. According to Article 8 subparagraph 6 of the Marine Transportation Act’s Article 8 subparag. 3-1, the Defendant’s prior notice of the instant disposition is acknowledged as having notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would be cancelled pursuant to Article 19(2) subparag. 2 of the Marine Transportation Act, but according to Articles 19(2)3-2 and 3-3 of the said Act, the Defendant stated only Article 19(2) subparag. 2 of the said Act on the ground of cancellation at the time of the instant disposition, and the Plaintiff’s revocation of the license pursuant to Article 19(2) subparag. 2 of the said Act on the ground that the instant disposition falls under Article 8 subparag. 5 of the said Act, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the instant disposition was rendered based on Articles 19(2)2 and 8 subparag. 5 of the said Act.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit to further examine.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the Park Judge;

Judges Park Sung-nam

Judges Shin Shin-il

1) On May 29, 2014 and May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for revocation of the revocation of a license for marine passenger transport services, respectively.

However, the disposition dated May 30, 2014 is a disposition correcting the disposition dated May 29, 2014, and according to the plaintiff's written complaint, according to the plaintiff's written complaint:

The plaintiff seems to have sought revocation of a single disposition.

A person shall be appointed.