1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the newly asserted in the court of first instance pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a harsh disposition that is virtually no different from the closure of business to the Plaintiff who has been engaged in the business of Chinese organization tourists continuously since the establishment of the instant disposition. Although the Plaintiff had been designated as a dedicated tourr and had been working for the activation of Korean tourism in China, the instant disposition was conducted on the ground that the Plaintiff committed an act violating the instant guidelines on two occasions only because it violated the instant guidelines, it goes against the principle of proportionality because the degree of the private interest infringed on is too severe than the public interest purpose achieved. Therefore, the instant disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority.

B. If a judgment is revoked or withdrawn, it would infringe the vested rights of the people already granted. Thus, even if there are grounds such as revocation, the exercise of the right of revocation, etc. should be determined by comparing and comparing with the disadvantage suffered by the other party, only when it is necessary for the significant public interest to justify the infringement of the vested rights or when it is necessary to protect the interests of a third party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7606 delivered on July 22, 2004). The instant guide appears to be reasonable and reasonable, and the Plaintiff was designated as a full-time tourer from 2012 to have been well aware of the content and purport of the instant guide. However, the Plaintiff, despite having been well aware of the content and purpose of the instant guide, had a third party perform the travel business within the Republic of Korea of Chinese organization tourists, and if such business attitude is delayed, he/she shall be disqualified without permission from Chinese organization tourists.