2017Nu35617 Revocation of the designation of exclusively responsible tourer in China

Jata T&M Co., Ltd.

The Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2016Guhap62566 decided January 19, 2017

August 18, 2017

September 15, 2017

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked, and the revocation of the designation of the Chinese travel agent, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on March 28, 2016, shall be revoked.

1. cite the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the entry in this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment by this court, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420

2. Additional determination by this Court

The Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition was unlawful as the grounds for appeal by this court on the ground that the Plaintiff’s “the Defendant’s record of custody for the last one year” was less than 100 persons, and that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to know that there was no explanation or notification as to the point of time prior to the renewal evaluation, and that such explanation was not timely. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff induced but was transferred to other travel agencies due to unavoidable circumstances, and the record of expected custody after the instant disposition, etc., the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused discretion.”

First of all, the defendant's assertion that the procedure for the disposition of this case is unlawful because it did not explain and notify the plaintiff in advance about the point of time of reference of "the results of custody for the last one year" in the evaluation of renewal of the plaintiff is not a standard separately prepared by the defendant for the evaluation of renewal, but a standard of "where the results of custody for the last one year are less than 10 persons" is defined in Article 11 (3) 4 of the Guideline, which had existed since the designation of the exclusive travel agent for the plaintiff as a sanction for the renewal. The defendant is not based on Article 3-2 of the Guideline, which provides for the renewal of the exclusive travel agent for the disposition of this case, but based on Article 11 (3) 4 of the Guideline. Thus, the plaintiff's argument that the procedure for the disposition of this case is procedural error is not without merit. Next, the remaining arguments of the plaintiff are not different from the contents already asserted by the plaintiff in the first instance court. The court of first instance that rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the grounds as cited.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are borne by the losing plaintiff.

The presiding judge, the full-time judge

Judges Supbing

For the purpose of judge sex impulse

1) In addition, in light of the language, content, purpose, etc. of Article 11(3) Subparag. 4, the term “performance of custody for the last one year” means:

It is reasonable to view that it is one year from the base point of time of examination for imposing sanctions against the plaintiff. It is in this case

the plaintiff's results from January 2, 2005 to December 12 of the same year or from March 2016 to one year before base date.

There is no difference in the results due to the lack of 100 persons who are the minimum records of custody.