(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.3.30.선고 2017누77048 판결

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of revocation of the designation of the exclusive travel agent in China against the plaintiff on March 28, 2016 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of the judgment of the court on the instant case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following determination as to the matters alleged by the plaintiff, which is emphasized by the court of first instance. Thus, this court shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8

【Supplementary Decision】

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is a travel company specializing in attracting Chinese-Korean cruises, and the normal travel company is different from its revenue structure. Therefore, when examining the price adequacy of the unit price per package at the time of examining the re-designation, the disposition of this case assessed on the same basis as the plaintiff should be assessed on different standards, notwithstanding the fact that the event of the cruise as the plaintiff and the general travel company are assessed on the same basis, is unlawful by abusing and abusing its discretion.

B. Determination

1) The Plaintiff received less than 66 points below 70 points, which are the standard points for the renewal of exclusive tour operators in China, and revoked the designation of exclusive tour operators in charge of attracting Chinese organizations. The Plaintiff received 4 points in the above item from 20 points (2014 points and 10 points in 2015) among the standard points for the renewal of exclusive tour operators in charge of Chinese organizations. The Plaintiff, as seen earlier, did not distinguish the events for exclusive tour operators and other events for exclusive tour operators such as the Plaintiff, but did not distinguish them from the events for exclusive tour operators and other events for exclusive tour tourists.

2) In the case of travel agencies for cruise group tourists, most of the expenses incurred at the travel destination are against the travel travel cost and transportation cost, and most of the expenses incurred at the travel destination are against the general group tourists, if the price structure differs due to additional entry of the travel travel cost and transportation cost, and if the price rationality assessment is made based on the same standard, the expenses incurred at the travel destination are disadvantageous to the cruise group tourists.

3) However, as a matter of principle, the detailed contents of the evaluation items for renewal of exclusive tour operators, allocation method, method of evaluation, and detailed method and criteria for calculation of evaluation points, etc. are assigned to the Defendant’s own policy or autonomous judgment, which is the competent authority, to a certain extent according to any criteria, and whether to prepare the detailed criteria therefor shall not be deemed to have escaped from and abused discretion unless the above evaluation criteria are contrary to the Constitution or laws, or are excessively unreasonable, and are contrary to the objective legitimacy.

4) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the Plaintiff’s attraction rate per head of the year 2014 was excessively low even if considering the circumstances that the Plaintiff’s operation against the cruise group tourists was 144 won; ② in the case of the business against cruise group tourists, there are unfavorable aspects in the attraction rate item; on the other hand, in the case of cruise group tourism, the number of its employees is larger than that of ordinary group tourists, and there are favorable aspects in the attraction of tourists; ③ the criteria for the evaluation of evaluation items other than price compatibility is not too strict, and it seems that there seems to be no difficulty in meeting 70 points, which are the standard for the renewal of the exclusive travel of Chinese group tourists. In light of the above, it is difficult to view that the instant disposition, which was assessed as the same standard for the evaluation without distinguishing the exercise of the exclusive travel of cruise group and the general group tourists, was excessively unreasonable and abused.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.