2016Nu69347. Revocation of revocation of designation as a Chinese organization tourer in exclusive charge of attracting tourists

Yang Life Tour Co., Ltd.

The Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap3000 decided October 6, 2016

April 21, 2017

May 12, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The revocation of the designation of the travel agency exclusively in charge of attracting Chinese organizations tourists against the plaintiff on March 28, 2016 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this decision are as follows: "In addition, it is possible to recognize the following facts ("the additional facts recognized by this court" as follows)"; "The following circumstances known from 11th, 4, and 5th of the first instance court's 9th 12th 11th 12th 12th 12th 12th 12th 12th 12th 17th 201, "the legitimacy of the objective and means" as "the propriety of the objective and means"; "the fact that the new disciplinary measure is already included in the items of assessment for renewal in 2013, and it is difficult for the court to recognize that it violated the principle of proportionality 20th 4th 2th 2th 2th 2th 12th 12th 12th 2th 2013 without permission because it was sufficiently predicted that the plaintiff could have been excluded from the content of assessment for renewal; thus, it is difficult for the court to apply the principle of proportionality 20th 2th 3th 2th 3th 3th 2th 2 of the judgment.

① Around March 2013, the Defendant held a public hearing to amend the instant guidelines that include the introduction of the system for the renewal of exclusive tour operators. A public hearing to establish the proposal for the renewal of exclusive tour operators around July 2013 was held and presented to exclusive tour operators a comprehensive evaluation table specifying the evaluation area, evaluation items, evaluation index, and marks on each evaluation item, and heard their opinions. However, at the same time, the strengthening of the penalty points for exclusive tour operators without permission was discussed.

② On September 5, 2013, the Defendant determined the criteria for the evaluation of the renewal system, and notified the president of the Korea Tour Business Association of the following matters of the detailed evaluation items of the renewal system as well as the allocation of marks as follows. In consideration of the travel agencies discussed earlier, the Defendant included the administrative sanctions (15 points) in the category of compliance with the legal system. The president of the Korea Tour Business Association announced it on the same day to the exclusive travel agencies, and notified the 100-points of the evaluation results according to each evaluation items, and announced that the companies with at least 75 points out of the 100-points will be re-designated as the exclusive travel agencies, which should submit the evaluation documents for the implementation of the renewal system by September 23, 201

(1) Atten (15) Financial soundness (5) financial soundness (5), 3) compliance with the legal system (10 points from tourists without permission, 10 points, 15 points from administrative sanctions, 10 points), and 10 points (15 points from medical tourism, MICE tourism, cosmetic tourism, etc.).

③ On December 5, 2013, the Defendant notified that exclusive travel agents, including the Plaintiff, who received at least 75 points in total, were re-designated as exclusive travel agents as a result of the evaluation conducted in accordance with the criteria for the evaluation of the renewal system in 2013, and announced that the results of attracting, product prices, administrative sanctions, history of low-cost goods, sales rate of high-value goods, etc. will be reflected in the evaluation of the renewal system conducted every two years.

(4) In amending the instant guidelines as of August 1, 2014, the Defendant “The Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism shall not publish the guidelines.”

The provision of the dedicated tourer's renewal clause (Article 3-2 of the Guidelines) was newly established that "The dedicated tourer's qualification shall be granted as a exclusive tourer once every two years by taking into account the results of attracting tourists, response to the government tourism policy, financial soundness, records of administrative disposition, the rate of occurrence of unauthorized tourers, etc.".

6) On September 23, 2015, the Defendant held an explanatory meeting using the electronic management system, and the Plaintiff’s employee participated in it. On October 5, 2015, the Defendant notified the head of the Korea Tour Business Association of the establishment of an electronic management system to enter the company’s performance records, and notified the exclusive tourer of the establishment of the electronic management system to enter the company’s performance records in 2014 and 2015, the Defendant was scheduled to utilize it in the evaluation of re-designation in 2015. The Chairperson of the Korea Tour Business announced it to the exclusive tourer on the same day.

(6) On December 24, 2015, the Defendant assessed the performance of 170 exclusive tourers designated by February 2014, including the Plaintiff, and requested the National Tax Service to submit data related to the evaluation of performance records, such as evidence of financial statements to be reported by the National Tax Service in 2015, and evidence of performance records, such as the selection of public contest slips and excellent goods.

7) The Plaintiff was subject to a corrective order on August 29, 2014, and a penalty surcharge on October 8, 2014, and November 17, 2014, respectively. The reason was that the Plaintiff failed to report without permission, and the reason was 42 persons from January 29, 2014 to October 2015.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge, senior judge

Judges Shin Jin-hee

Judges Lee Jae-chul