The judgment below

On September 3, 2018, the part of the claim for confirmation of the primary invalidity of the change of the license for the ferry business on September 3, 2018.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Case summary and key issue

A. The reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following circumstances.

1) B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).

A) On or around March 4, 1999, pursuant to Article 3 of the former Excursion Ship and Ferry Business Act (amended by Act No. 9095 of Jun. 5, 2008), etc., the Defendant shall have a ferry station in Jung-gu, Incheon, and Dong-gun, Incheon, and Dong-gun, and shall operate each ferry station, respectively, as its business area, “Y-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul (1.8km)- Da (6.5km)-Jakjin-gun (hereinafter “instant sea route”).

() The ferry business license (business period: from March 4, 199) with the content of the ferry business that plies a ferry, obtained a license for the ferry business (business period: from March 4, 199) and received a disposition to change the license for the ferry business with the content of partial revision of the license (hereinafter “existing ferry business license”) several times, which changed by April 6, 2017.

(2) As the age of I (319 tons, 394 personnel) operated on the instant sea route came to fall into 20 years, B applied for a change in the license for a ferry business to replace I previously licensed to N(715 tons, 504 personnel) as a new large vessel on April 6, 2017. The Defendant accepted the application and issued a disposition to change the license for a ferry business on April 12, 2017 by setting the date of commencement of N’s navigation as of April 12, 2017.

hereinafter referred to as the "first modified disposition".

3) The Plaintiff is competing with B by running the maritime passenger transport business in accordance with the Marine Transportation Act on the instant sea route.

As the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the first disposition of change was issued against B, on December 14, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the first disposition of change should be revoked because it violated the Plaintiff’s maritime passenger transport business rights.

4. The first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s assertion and changed the number of pilotages operated on the service route of this case by B.