(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.9.15.선고 2015구합22181 판결

On November 20, 2014, the defendant revoked the approval of the revised plan for regular coastal passenger transportation services rendered to Taesung Shipping Co., Ltd. on November 20, 2014

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are currently residents of Ulllledo, and the Taesung Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Tongsung Shipping") is a corporation established on July 23, 2012 for the purpose of maritime passenger and cargo transport business.

B. On August 23, 2013, Taesung Shipping applied for a license for regular coastal passenger transportation services to the Defendant on September 3, 2013. From October 1, 2014 to October 1, 2014, hereinafter referred to as the “instant vessel”) with the Defendant’s conditional license for marine passenger transportation services, it started regular passenger transportation services between Ulle-Ulle-Ulle-Ulle-Ulle (hereinafter referred to as “Ulle-Ulle-Ulle-Ulle-U”) with the vessel operating from around 1, 2014 as the vessel operating. On November 12, 2014, it is reasonable for the Defendant to continuously review the application to change the operating time and frequency of Taesung Shipping to the head of Ulsan-Ulle Gun to the effect that it was difficult for the residents of Ulle-Ulle Gun to provide transportation services from the residents of Ulle-Ulle 19 to the present date.

D. On November 20, 2014, at the request of the Taesung Shipping, the Defendant issued a disposition to authorize the alteration plan of the scheduled coastal passenger transport business (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with the following content.

(a) Authorized person: Type A, B, and business of Taesung Shipping Co., Ltd.: Coastal regular passenger transportation services; Aeronautical vessels: 1 (449 passengers' capacity, 35 knots at navigation speed) : 1 king/Ull (low port)/Ull (low port)-Ma. Change in navigation frequency: Time and frequency of operation, frequency and speed (35436 knots) per day;

바. 변경사유 0 인가일로부터 5개월이내 포항여객부두내 현재 이용선석의 대체선석 확보 ○ 이용자 편익 증진 및 세월호 침몰사고 이후 울릉도 관광객 감소에 따른 적자경영문제 해소 등 사. 시행일 이용하고자하는 포항여객부두 선석에 감수보존선박인 아라퀸즈호가 접안하여 있는 바, 대구지방법원 포항지원과 협의하여 감수보존장소를 이전하여야 하므로, 인가일로부터 5개월 이내 포항여객부두 내 현재 이용선석의 대체선석 확보하는 날부터 시행 아. 인가조건 1) 사업계획서 준수 및 본 인가일로부터 5개월 이내 포항여객부두 내 현재 이용하는 선석 의 대체선석을 확보해야 합니다. 2) 이용자들의 포항여객부두 대합실 이용에 지장이 발생할 경우 우리청의 지시에 따라 선 박운항시간 조정 등의 필요한 조치를 해야 합니다. 3) 포항여객부두 내 현재 이용하는 선석의 대체선석 확보 즉시 변경사항(항해속력, 운항시 각)에 대하여 운항관리규정과 면허증은 개서를 통해 재발급 받아야 합니다. 4) 본 인가와 관련하여 민원이 발생할 경우 피인가자가 책임지고 해결해야 합니다. 5) 2014. 11. 14. 원고 패소한 광운고속해운 및 대저해운이 행정소송 불복절차(항소, 상고) 에 따라 진행하는 과정에서 피고(우리청)가 패소할 경우 우리청의 지시에 따라 선박운항시 간은 다른 선박의 운항시간에 지장이 없도록 조정되어야 합니다. 6) 포항여객부두 내 현재 이용하는 선석의 대체선석 확보가 불가능하거나 우리청의 지시사 항을 이행하지 않을 경우 본 인가를 취소할 수 있으며, 이 경우 피인가자는 우리청에 이의

No institution may be filed.7) I shall submit to our Office a letter of notarial performance within seven days from the date of authorization that I will comply with this authorization.

마. 한편, 이 사건 선박이 운항을 개시하기 전 이 사건 항로에서는 주식회사 대아고 속해운(주식회사 대저해운이 2014. 3. 1. 주식회사 대아고속해운의 해상여객운송사업을 승계)이 운항하던 썬플라워호와 광운고속해운 주식회사가 운항하던 아라퀸즈호 2대( 동절기 선박검사로 인한 대체선박 포함)가 운항하고 있었는데, 피고는 2014. 5, 30. 광운고속해운 주식회사에 대하여 사업계획에 따른 운항명령 미이행, 선박보유요건 미충족 등을 이유로 이 사건 항로에 대한 해상여객운송사업 면허를 취소하였고, 이에 광운 고속해운이 행정소송을 제기하여 제1심에서 청구기각 판결을 받고(대구지방법원 2014구합21358), 현재 대구고등법원에 사건 계속 중(2015두4021)이다.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiffs do not have the right to sue to seek the revocation of the instant disposition, since they have no direct and specific interests protected by the underlying laws or relevant laws and regulations.

B. The plaintiffs' assertion

In full view of Articles 1, 15(1) and 44 of the former Marine Transportation Act (amended by Act No. 13002, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter “Maritime Transportation Act”) and Article 35-2 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Quality of Life of Farmers and Fishermen and the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Areas, etc., the Plaintiffs are admitted to have traffic rights protected under the Constitution. Since the instant disposition does not have a passenger ship departing from the P.M. from the P. to the P.M. and there is no passenger ship departing from the P.M. from the P. and from the P.M. to the P.M. from March 11, 2015, the Plaintiffs are forced to seek revocation of the instant disposition. As such, the Plaintiffs have standing to seek revocation

B. Determination

1) Even if a third party who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition is infringed on legally protected interests due to the administrative disposition, an administrative litigation seeking the revocation or invalidity confirmation of the administrative disposition shall be entitled to be judged by the propriety of the administrative disposition. The term "legal protected interests" refers to cases where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations, and in cases where there are general, indirect, abstract interests of the general public as a result of the protection of public interests, there are no legal interests protected. Therefore, a third party who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition and seeks the revocation or invalidity confirmation on the ground that his environmental interests are infringed or are likely to be infringed upon by such disposition, shall be deemed to have standing to sue to prove that his environmental interests are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations or the relevant laws and regulations (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du2825, Sept. 24, 2009).

① The instant disposition approved the project plan to change the operating time of the instant vessel from 'Ulleung Port' to 'U.S. Port from 'M. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P.

② Article 1 of the Marine Transportation Act provides that “The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the improvement of user convenience, the development of the national economy and the promotion of public welfare by maintaining the order of marine transportation, ensuring fair competition, promoting the sound development of marine transportation business, and facilitating the smooth transportation of passengers and cargo.” However, Article 1 of the said Act provides that “the purpose of the said Act is to improve user convenience,” but this refers to the abstract purpose that should be pursued as a whole, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs have individual, direct, and specific interests in the instant disposition.

(3) Article 15 (1) of the Marine Transportation Act provides that "the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries may, if deemed necessary to secure the means of marine transportation for island residents, designate a sea route which will assist the cost of navigation (hereinafter referred to as "sea route") and allow the State or a local government to select and operate a person operating a subsidized route among operators of coastal passenger transportation services," and Article 44 of the Marine Transportation Act provides that "the State or a local government may subsidize a part of the fare and charge for passenger ships within budgetary limits to promote the convenience of the island area." Article 35-2 of the Special Act on the Improvement of Quality of Life of Farmers and Fishermen and the Promotion of Development of Agricultural and Fishing Areas may subsidize all or part of the fare and charge for coastal passenger transportation services in accordance with subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 3 of the Marine Transportation Act to secure the cost of marine transportation for island residents." However, it is difficult to deem that the State or a local government is able to provide the Plaintiffs with the fare and charge for coastal passenger transportation services in order to secure the means of marine transportation for island residents.

④ According to Article 12(2)3 and (3) of the Marine Transportation Act, Article 8 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Marine Transportation Act, and Article 5(1)4 of the Marine Transportation Act, when a passenger transport service provider seeks authorization for a revision to the passenger transport service plan, one of the matters to be examined by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries is required to establish and implement an operation plan suitable for the convenience of users in carrying on the relevant business. However, this is nothing more than the list of various items to be considered to determine whether to approve an application for a revision of a business plan. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs, who are the users of passenger ships, have the direct and specific interest to seek the revocation of the direct approval for the revision of the passenger transport

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.