[1] The legal nature of a village bus transport business license (=the discretionary act) and the legal nature of the act of determining the degree of permission overlapping with the existing regular bus routes when determining the village bus routes (=the act of discretion)

[2] Where the competent administrative agency registered the change of passenger transport service plan that approves the establishment of a village bus route to Gap corporation of passenger transport service provider Gap, and other passenger transport service provider corporation operating urban buses, etc. claimed revocation, the case holding that the above disposition cannot be deemed as a deviation or abuse of discretion

[1] Whether to grant a village bus transport business license is a field requiring technical and professional judgment on the traffic demand, route determination, transport capacity, supply capacity, etc. of the business area. The administrative disposition is based on the standards that meet the concrete feasibility in order to realize the public interest through the transportation administration as well as to pursue the unity of the purpose. Thus, within such scope, unless otherwise prescribed by the law, the determination of whether to grant a village bus license belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency. In determining the degree of permission for overlapping with the existing regular bus routes when determining the village bus routes finalized at the time of the limited license for the village bus, the determination of the degree of permission for overlapping with the existing regular bus routes belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency, and the degree of overlap of the routes shall be made individually in preparation for

[2] The case holding that in case where the competent administrative agency: (a) registered a change in the passenger transport service plan that approves the establishment of a village bus route pursuant to Article 10 of the Passenger Transport Service Act and Article 31 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act to Gap corporation of passenger transport service; (b) filed a claim for the revocation thereof with another passenger transport service company of the operation of the city bus; (c) the village bus route is a starting point and operating route; and (d) the village bus route is a non-permanent village, which is the associated part arising from the reduction of the operation route of the public bus; (e) despite the competent administrative agency's request for a increase in the number of local residents to resolve the civil complaints, it is impossible for transport business operators including Eul to use the village bus and the bus as a stop site; and (e) the village bus route is merely 11; and (e) the number and frequency of operation of the existing bus and the frequency of operation of the bus; and (e) the frequency and frequency of operation of the village bus; and (e) it does not affect the operation of the village bus.

[1] Articles 3 and 10 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 3 subparagraph 1 (a) and (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 8 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 362, Jul. 6, 201); Article 31 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act / [2] Articles 3 and 10 of the Passenger Transport Service Act; Article 3 subparagraph 1 (a) and (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act; Article 8 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (Amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 362, Jul. 6, 201); Article 31 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Du6026 delivered on October 12, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 2345) Supreme Court Decision 99Du3812 delivered on January 19, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 547) Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10028 delivered on June 28, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1832)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

The Yangju Market

August 23, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On April 27, 2010, the defendant revoked the registration of changes in passenger transport service plan made to new cancer transportation.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 27, 2010, the Defendant registered a change in passenger transport service plan (hereinafter “instant disposition”) that approves new cancer transportation to establish a new bus route No. 3-3 community bus route with the same operation system as the service route table (hereinafter “instant community bus route”) in accordance with Article 10 of the Passenger Transport Service Act and Article 31 of the Enforcement Rule of the said Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff is a corporation with the purpose of passenger transport business, etc., and is a passenger transport service provider who operates city buses Nos. 50 and 55 within both weeks with authorization from the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 4 evidence (including branch numbers, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The village bus route of this case does not mean the stop of the general urban bus nearest to the starting point, and it does not constitute a stop overlapping with the general urban bus, and it is in violation of the village bus operation system standards as stipulated by the passenger transport service statutes, since the general urban bus stops in the overlapping with the general urban bus and the general urban bus stops the two stations in operation. In addition, the bus route of this case serves the function of the city bus beyond the function of the village bus as a subsidiary or a connected means of transportation as long as the service distance and operation hours are longer than the general village bus, and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry is as follows.

C. Determination

1) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (including branch numbers where there are branch numbers), the village bus route of this case is to operate between low 2 Do and two occ. (attached Form 1) as indicated in the service route table, and the route of this case is to operate between two occ. (S.) and two occ. (S.) as indicated in the service route table. The route of the above village bus is not only the route and service hours compared to the general village bus route, but also the route of the city bus No. 32-1 and the two occ. through the two occ., desired apartment-1, up to 133 routes of the city bus and two occ.s. (including occ.) to 10 p.m. (5) the service route operated by the plaintiff, five apartment-occ. (3) the apartment-occ. (5) to 140 U.S.T.m.

2) However, the issue of whether to grant a village bus transport business license is subject to technical and professional judgment on the transport demand, route determination, transport capacity, supply capacity, etc. of a transport business area, and the administrative disposition related thereto should be based on the standards that meet the specific feasibility in order to realize public interest through the transport administration as well as to pursue the unity of purpose. Thus, within such scope, it should be deemed that the administrative agency's discretion belongs to the administrative agency's discretion unless otherwise prescribed by the law. In determining the village bus routes for which a village bus limited license is finalized at the time of a village bus limited license, the determination of the degree of permission for overlapping with the existing regular bus routes shall belong to the administrative agency's discretion. The degree of overlap of routes shall be separately prepared for the village bus routes and each general bus route (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du10028, Jun. 28, 2002, etc.).

(4) The defendant operated 13 and 16 of public buses for the purpose of attending and departing from the village residents, including e.g., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., e., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g. g., g., g. g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g. g. g.

3. Conclusion

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

[Attachment 1] Operational Route List: omitted

[Attachment 2] Relevant statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Su-cheon (Presiding Judge) Na Jong-hun