2014Guhap960 Revocation of revocation of the designation of a Chinese travel agent

A Stock Company

The Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism

May 15, 2014

July 3, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On December 5, 2013, the Defendant revoked the revocation of the designation of a Chinese travel agent exclusively in charge of China against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a company whose business purpose is general travel business, overseas travel business, etc., and is designated by the defendant as a "Korean organization tour guide for attracting tourists" pursuant to Article 3 (1) of the "Guidelines for the Implementation of Exclusive Tour Business" (hereinafter referred to as the "Guidelines") (hereinafter referred to as "China tour guide").

B. On December 5, 2013, based on Article 11(3)4 of the instant Guidelines, the Defendant issued a disposition revoking the designation of an event held exclusively by China (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s recent year of attracting Chinese collective tourists was less than 100 persons.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff: (a) through the limited construction, invited each Chinese group tour on September 28, 2012; (b) on September 24, 2012; (c) on September 24, 2012; (d) on October 10, 2012; (e) on December 19, 2015; (e) on December 20, 2012; (c) on December 20, 2012; (d) on December 9, 2012, Chinese group tour opened by the Plaintiff from September 28, 2012 to December 20, 2012; and (e) on the certified list of Chinese group tourists, the number of Chinese group tourists certified by CA from July 9, 2013 to November 4, 2013 to 11, is 113.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s recent year of attracting Chinese collective tourists is more than 100 persons, and the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant provisions

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to the assertion that the Plaintiff’s collective tourism attracting from September 2012 to December 2012 is a total of 113 persons for Chinese collective tourism.

The evidence No. 4-1 to No. 5 submitted by the Plaintiff based on the above assertion is a confirmation letter of attracting Chinese group tourists prepared by the Plaintiff, and its contents are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

However, according to the statements in Eul evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 8-1 through 4, Eul evidence 9-1 through 4, Eul evidence 10-1 through 4, Eul evidence 11-1 through 4, Eul evidence 12-1 through 3, Eul evidence 13-1 through 8, Eul evidence 16, and Eul evidence 16, the following facts are acknowledged:

① On August 3, 2012, H Association conducted a fact-finding survey on Chinese exclusive travel agents. As a result, the Plaintiff’s workplace does not exist on the land, and is practically unified into the business of I (hereinafter referred to as “foreign company”), a separate travel agent, and the representative director of the Plaintiff was in charge of the Nonparty Company’s business. On August 17, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff and Nonparty Company of the result of the fact-finding survey and urged him to pay attention.

②) The contents of Non-Party Company’s written confirmation of attracting Chinese organization tourists (No. 8-3, No. 9-3, No. 10-3, No. 11-3, and No. 12-3) submitted by Non-Party Company to the consul of the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea are completely identical to the above table.

③ As data on the record of attracting Chinese group tourists, the non-party company stated the schedule of travel and the certificate of organization (No. 13-2, 3, and 8) that the non-party company submitted to the H association as the person in charge of emergency communication and stated the “J chief” as the person in charge of emergency communication, and stated the current status of qualification virtual data (Evidence No. 16) submitted by the Plaintiff to the H association as the person in charge.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there are 113 Chinese collective tourists attracting from September 2012 to December 2012, 2012 is without merit.

2) As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the number of Chinese collective tourists recruited from July 9, 2013 to November 4, 2013 is 833.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 through 40, the application for the issuance of collective visa submitted by C, a Chinese travel agent exclusively in charge of sending on the Chinese side, to the Korean consul from July 9, 2013 to November 4, 2013, is written by the plaintiff as the Chinese travel agent exclusively in charge of the Republic of Korea, and it is recognized that the number of Chinese tourist who applied for the issuance of group visa through the above application is 83 persons.

However, comprehensively taking account of the following facts: (a) the Defendant: (i) requested the Plaintiff, before rendering the instant disposition, to submit data on the record of attracting Chinese group tourists, such as domestic hotel reservation data, chartered bus rental contract, deposit certificate, etc.; (ii) the Plaintiff failed to submit such data until now; and (iii) the Plaintiff’s exclusive travel company recruited Chinese group tourists to apply for the issuance of group visas, and entered and travel in the Republic of Korea, and the domestic country is entrusted to another travel company with the prohibition of the name lending under Article 11(3) and 2 of the instant Guidelines, and it was found that there was a case where the act of violating the prohibition of the name lending under Article 11(3) of the instant Guidelines was discovered at the Immigration Office. Considering that the Plaintiff was closely related to the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company, as seen earlier, and it appears that the business was conducted mainly through Nonparty Company, the fact that the Plaintiff’s prior approval was insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s exclusive travel company was an organization of China from July 9, 2013 to November 3, 8, 2013.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Sub-committee

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and there is no evidence to prove the fact that there are at least 10 Chinese organizations' attraction records for the last one year. Thus, the disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge shall be appointed by a judge.

Judges' Branch Office Counter

Judges Domination