(영문) 대구고등법원 2015.12.11.선고 2014누6921 판결

2. The Defendant’s conditional license for marine passenger transport services rendered against the Intervenor joining the Defendant on September 3, 2013 is revoked.

3. The supplementary participation part among the total costs of the lawsuit is borne by the Defendant, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff obtained a license for marine passenger transport services from the Defendant for the sea route from the port to Ulsan (Dongdong) route on May 10, 2013 pursuant to Article 4(1) of the former Marine Transportation Act (amended by Act No. 13002, Jan. 6, 2015; hereinafter “Maritime Transportation Act”), and operates a sea passenger transport service license with the following details as follows. The Plaintiff is a business operator operating a flue line (2,394G/T, 920 passengers, 40 navigation speed).

해상여객운송사업 면허 (갑 제2호증)사업의 종류: 내항정기여객운송사업대상선박: 썬플라워(총톤수 2,394t, 여객정원 920명, 항해속력 40노트)항로: 포항↔울릉(도동)○ 운항횟수: 평수기 1일 1왕복, 하계피서철 1일 2왕복, 동절기 1일 1왕복

나. 주식회사 나라해운(이하 '나라해운'이라 한다)은 2006. 4. 20.경 포항 울릉(도동) 항로에 대하여 오리엔트호(2,048G/T)를 운항선박으로 하여 해상여객운송사업 면허를 받았고, 광운고속해운 주식회사(이하 '광운고속해운'이라 한다)는 위 면허를 인수하여 2013. 4.경 피고로부터 오리엔트호의 대체선박인 아라퀸즈호(3,403G/T)에 관하여 사업계획변경 인가를 받았다.

C. On August 23, 2013, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) issued a conditional license for marine passenger transport services to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant application”) on the following terms, on the ground that the Intervenor’s business plan was examined on September 3, 2013, and the Defendant issued a conditional license for marine passenger transport services to the Intervenor on the ground that the average transport rate for the last three years as specified in Article 5(1)1 of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, as stated in the list, meet the legal requirements at 25.1%, on the ground that the average transport rate for the last three years as specified in Article 5(1)2 and 5 of the Marine Transportation Act, as stated in the list, meet the legal requirements (hereinafter referred to as the “instant conditional license”).

Conditional licenses for marine passenger transportation services (No. 2: A vessel scheduled to be operated for coastwise regular passenger transportation services: A string line with Aluminium ( gross tonnage of 850 tons, passenger capacity of 600 persons, navigation speed of 38 knotss): Ulle (low-dong) / the frequency of navigation of port port: One more per day.

D. On February 14, 2014, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor acquired the instant license from the Plaintiff around February 14, 2014 during the first instance trial. On March 1, 2014, the report on succession to maritime passenger transport services under the Marine Transportation Act was accepted, and on March 1, 2014, the Plaintiff succeeded to the instant lawsuit by stating an application for succession from March 25, 2014 on the date of the second instance trial as of March 26, 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff withdrawn from the instant lawsuit with the Defendant’s consent at the date of said pleading.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 20 (each combination of numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's successor's assertion

(i) argument that the transport demand does not conform to the transport demand criteria

Article 5(1)1 of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act provide that the average transport rate of all passenger ships (including vessels for reserve use) already placed on the sea route to be considered as the same route as the one for which an application for a license for marine passenger transport services is filed shall be at least 25%, which is the average transport rate for the last three years. The Intervenor’s application for the instant license did not meet the transport demand standard for the following reasons. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on a different premise is unlawful.

가) 아라퀸즈호의 1년간 운항실적 환산에 적용되는 운항일수와 관련한 주장

주위적으로, 피고는 이 사건 면허신청선박과 같은 항로(포항-울릉간 항로, 이하 '이 사건 항로'라 한다)에 이미 취항하고 있는 여객선으로서 1년 미만 운항선박에 해당하는 아라퀸즈호에 관하여 운항수입은 해운법 시행규칙 제4조 제5항 [별표 1](이하 '이 사건 규직'이라 한다) 제2호 라목에 따라 실제 운항실적을 1년간 실적으로 환산하여 산정하면서도 운항일수는 썬플라워호의 직전 1년간 운항일수 247일을 원용하여 산정하였는데, 이 사건 규칙 제2호 라목의 운항실적에는 운항일수도 포함되므로, 아라퀸즈호의 실제 운항일수를 1년간 운항일수로 환산하여야 한다(이하 '① 주장'이라 한다).

예비적으로, 이 사건 규칙 제2호 라목의 운항실적이 운항수입만을 의미하는 것으로 해석된다고 하더라도, 아라퀸즈호의 운항일수는 예비용 선박의 운항일수 산정규정인 이 사건 규칙 제2호 마목을 유추적용하여, 썬플라워호의 3년간 평균 운항일수를 원용하는 것이 더욱 합리적이다(이하 '②) 주장'이라 한다).

나) 아라퀸즈호의 운항실적 환산시 성수기, 비수기가 고려되어야 한다는 주장이 사건 항로는 크게 성수기 5개월(5월~8월 및 10월), 준성수기 2개월(4월, 9월), 비수기 5개월(11월~3월)로 구분되고, 여름 성수기 3개월(6월~8월)과 겨울 비수기 3개월(12월~2월)을 비교해 보면 수송인원이 무려 4배 이상 차이가 나므로, 여름 성수기인 7월 말에 11일간(2013. 7. 19.~2013. 7. 31.) 운항한 아라퀸즈호의 운항실적을 1년간 실적으로 환산함에 있어, 일할계산한 1일 실적에 연평균 운항일수를 곱하는 단순한 방법에 의할 것이 아니라 이와 같은 계절적 요인에 따른 운항실적까지 고려하여야 한다(이하 '3 주장'이라 한다).

C) Claim regarding the calculation method of the expected average fare of the vessel applying for the instant license

In the first place, the defendant used, at the time of applying for the previous license to AB, the average transportation rate for each person of the vessel applying for the license of this case, the average transportation rate for each person of Snick Sheet, which has been normally operated for three years without including substitute vessels, as it is. The average transportation rate per person of the vessel applying for the license of this case shall also be cut to the same level as the previous application criteria, and the average transportation rate per person (43,715 won) shall be invoked (hereinafter referred to as the "claim").

예비적으로, 이 사건 면허신청선박의 1인당 예상 평균 운임은 이 사건 규칙 제1호 비고 7.에 의하여 면허신청 당시 운항 여객선 중에 유사한 형태의 선박이 있는 경우 면허신청일 현재 운항 여객선의 여객 1인당 평균 운임으로 산정하도록 규정되어 있으므로, 이 사건 면허신청 당시 운항 여객선 중에 유사한 형태의 선박인 썬플라워호의 1인당 평균 운임(43,715원)과 아라퀸즈호의 1인당 평균 운임(48,434원)을 평균하여 산정하여야 하고, 썬플라워호의 대체선박인 오션플라워호와 씨플라워호, 그리고 아라퀸즈호로 대체되기 전의 선박인 오리엔트호는 이 사건 면허신청 선박과 유사한 형태의 선박이 아니거나 현재 운항 중인 선박이 아니므로 제외하여야 한다(이하 '16 주장'이라 한다). 라) 오션플라워호와 씨플라워호의 운항일수와 관련한 주장

As long as the Defendant has agreed to apply the calculation method under subparagraph 2 of the Rules corresponding to a preliminary vessel when calculating the transportation import rate of the Oral plug and the Cpla, which is a temporary substitute vessel for Snicking, the average number of navigation days should be applied by applying subparagraph 2 (e) of the Rules to the average number of navigation days, by analogying subparagraph 2 (e) of the Rules of this case to the relevant service route vessel, and by applying the average number of navigation days for the last three years of Sick pla

E) argument regarding the importation of the goods of Salking Salga flas

Since 2011, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor calculated and legally reported the freight income under Sshack Sn Pung-D, which was not the actual freight income, by the amount calculated by multiplying the freight per ton by the transport tonnage, not the actual freight income. However, in calculating the average transport income ratio related to the instant disposition, the actual transport income under Sshack-hung, Sick-hacking, Sick-hacking, Sick-hacking, Sick-hacking, under subparagraph 1 of the instant Rule, should be applied, and the average transport income ratio would not meet the water supply requirement (hereinafter referred to as “sick-hack”).

(ii) argument that there is concern over the nonconformity with transport facility standards and the safety of marine traffic;

해운법 제5조 제1항은 해상여객운송사업의 면허기준으로 '해당 사업에 사용되는 선박계류시설과 그 밖의 수송시설이 해당 항로에서의 수송수요의 성격과 해당 항로에 알맞을 것'(제2호) 및 '해당사업을 시작하는 것이 해상교통의 안전에 지장을 줄 우려가 없을 것'(제3호)을 각 규정하고 있는 점, 포항항 선착장에는 여객선 2척이 정박할 수 있는 시설만이 갖추어져 있는 점, 이 사건 항로에는 이미 썬플라워호와 아라퀸즈호가 운항하고 있고 위 선박들은 포항항의 선박 계류시설을 사용하고 있는 점, 이렇듯 포항항의 선박 계류시설이 절대적으로 부족하여 기상악화 등으로 포항항에 썬플라워호와 이 사건 면허신청 선박이 동시에 정박하여야 하는 상황이 발생할 경우 해상교통의 안전에 지장을 줄 우려가 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 포항항에 선박계류시설이 충분히 확보되지 않은 상황에서 이루어진 참가인의 이 사건 면허신청은 해상교통의 안전 요건을 충족하였다고 할 수 없다.

3) The assertion of deviation and abuse of discretionary power

The Defendant rejected the application for the previous license of SPPPPP Co., Ltd. for the lack of vessel mooring facilities in the port at the time of the application for the previous license, and despite the same situation of the port at the time of the application for the instant license, the Defendant’s determination that only the application for the instant license by the UPPPP is in violation of equity and is in violation of discretionary power.

(b) Related statutes;

[Attachment 5] The entry of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the assertion that the transport demand standard is inappropriate

A) Relevant provisions

Article 5(1) of the Marine Transportation Act provides that "the commencement of a business plan shall meet the criteria for transport demand prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries," and Article 4(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act provides that "the commencement of the relevant business shall meet the criteria for transport demand prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries". In addition, "the criteria for transport demand prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs" of Article 5(1)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act provides that "the average rate of transport demand (including preliminary vessels) of the total passenger ships (including vessels) already placed on the same sea route as newly applied for a license for marine passenger transport service shall be at least 25/100 including the passenger ships of the relevant marine passenger transport service, which are newly applied for a license based on large transport capacity and actual transport capacity, shall be determined and publicly notified by the Presidential Decree of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on the basis of the average rate of transport demand for the same sea route and the average rate of transport demand for three years."

B) the facts of recognition

(1) 이 사건 만허신정일 전월로부터 이전 3년간 이 사건 항로에서 운항한 선박은 썬플라워호, 오리엔트호, 아라퀸즈호, 오션플라워호, 씨플라워호인데, 아라퀸즈호는 오리엔트호의 대체선박이고, 오션플라워호와 씨플라워호는 썬플라워호의 일시 대체선박이다.

(2) Salking flas is a Kaflas vessel of 2,394t gross tonnage, which has been operated on the instant service route for more than three years. The annual average number of navigation days for the last three years is 260 days, the number of navigation days for the preceding one year prior to the application for the instant license is 247 days, and the operation hours is 3 hours and the anchorage hours is 2 hours. The Sclas flas flas is a temporary substitute vessel operated on an implied port route for a ship inspection by up to 30 days from February of each year.

(3) The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor prepared monthly transportation records of passenger ships on the instant sea route and submitted them to the Shipping Association. The number of monthly passenger transportation personnel for 3 years Scing Scra for Scra for 3 years (from August 2010 to July 7, 2013) are as shown in the list (attached Form 3), and the average transportation record for 3 years is as listed in the table (attached Form 1), 7,6021 and 3 years (the annual average transportation record is KRW 286,717,00 as indicated in the table (cargo). In addition, the number of transportation personnel on January 201, 201-1, including 3,355, total number of transportation personnel, 491, total transportation number of transportation personnel, 200, 193, 2013.

(4) 오리엔트호는 2006. 4. 20. 이 사건 항로에서 해상여객운송사업 면허를 받은 2,048t 규모의 카페리선박인데, 2013년경 향일해운 주삭회사 소유의 아라퀸즈호(광 운고속해운이 임차함)로 대체됨에 따라 감선되었다. 아라퀸즈호는 2013. 7. 19.~7. 31. 중 휴항일 2일을 제외하고 총 11일을 운항하였는데, 그 운항기간 중 여객수송실적은 9,396명, 수입은 약 455,093,000원이고, 화물수송실적은 2901, 수입은 약 4,799,000원이다. (5) 이 사건 면허신청선박은 총톤수 850t 규모의 알루미늄 쾌속선(여객선)으로서 여객정원 600명, 항해속력 38노트이고, 이 사건 항로를 1일 1회 왕복하며, 운항시간은 3시간, 정박시간은 3시간이다.

(6) 피고는 참가인의 이 사건 면허신청에 따른 최근 3년간 평균 운송수입률을 [별지 1] 목록 기재와 같이 25.11%로 산정하였는바, ① 대상선박은 썬플라워호, 오리엔 트호, 아라퀸즈호, 오션플라워호, 씨플라워호 및 이 사건 면허신청 선박이고, 산정기간은 해운법 시행규칙 제4조 및 내항해운고시 제3조에 따라 이 사건 면허신청일 전원을 기준으로 이전 3년인 2010. 8. 1.~2013. 7. 31.이며, ② 대상선박의 1일 운항횟수는 이 사건 규칙 제2호 가목에 따라 1일 운항가능시간을 1회 소요시간으로 나누는 방법으로 산정하여 썬플라워호는 1일 4회, 면허신청선박은 1일 2회 등으로 각 산정하였고, ③ 운항일수가 1년에 미달하는 아라퀸즈호에 대하여는 이 사건 규칙 제2호 라목에 따라 1년간 실적으로 환산하면서, ① 연간 운항일수는 썬플라워호의 최근 1년간 운항일수인 247일로 정하고, Ⓒ 연간 여객 및 화물 수송실적은 11일의 실적에서 1일 실적을 구한 값에 247일을 곱하는 방법으로 산정하였으며, ④ 이 사건 면허신청 선박의 3년간 (연)평균 운항일수는 썬플라위호의 3년간 (연평균 운항일수 260일과 아라퀸즈호의 (연평균 운항일수 247일을 평균한 253일로 산정하였다. 구체적인 산정방법은 아래와 같다.

■ 평균 운송수입율 산정 검토 및 산정 내역(을가 제1호증의 3)이 대상선박 [대체선박포함 / 포항~울릉(도동) 항로운항 선박]① 썬플라워② 오리엔트(구 독도페리): '06.4.20. 최초면허③ 아라퀸즈(오리엔트대체): 13.7.19. 첫 운항오션플라워(썬플랴워대체): 썬플라워호(1~2월/선박수리등) 운항하지 못하는 기간 운항⑤ 씨플라워(썬플라워 대체): 썬플라워호(1~2월 선박수리등) 운항하지 못하는 기간 운항⑥ 면허신청 선박썬플라워호 일시적 대체선박 운송수입율 산정예비선에 준하여 산정(해운법 시행규칙 제4조 제5항 “별표 12호 산정방법 준용)○ 선박이 2척 이상인 항로의 경우 분모는 선박별로 산출하여 합산* 포항~울릉항로 면허선박(2척): 썬플라워호, 아라퀸즈호(대체 전: 오리엔트호)그 동안 신규 면허신청관련 평균 운송수입률 산정시 면허선박(2척)과 면허선박(썬플라워호)을일시적으로 대체 운항한 선박(오션플라워호 등)의 수송실적을 포함하여 산정평균 운송수입률 산정기간은 면허신청일 전월 기준으로 이전 3년간이므로 3년간 운항선박 (면허선박과 면허선박 대체선박)의 수송실적을 모두 합산하여 산정하는 것이 바람직함산정기준: 해운법 시행규칙 제4조 및 해운법 시행규칙에 따라 정하는 내항해운에 관한 고시 제3조 적용0 평균 운송수입률 산정기간: 2010.8.1.~2013.7.31.면허신청일(2013.8.23.) 전월 기준으로 이전 3년간의 기간(고시3조)0 1일 운항 가능횟수 산정썬플라워호(카페리): 4회* 운항(3시간) + 정박(2시간) 5시간, 1일 24시간 / 5시간 = 4.8 회- 오션플라워호 (썬플라워호 겨을철 수리 지 일시적 대체선박): 2회* 운항(3시간) + 정박(2시간) = 5시간, 1일 13시간: / 시간 =2.6회씨플라워호(썬플라워호 겨울철 수리 시 일시적 대체선박): 2회* 운항(4.5시간) + 정박(1시간) = 5.5시간, 1일 13시간 / 5.5시간 = 2.45 회오리엔트호(카페리): 2회* 운항(6시간) + 정박(2시간) = 8시간, 1일 24시간 / 8시간 = 3.0 회아라퀸즈호(카페리/오리엔트호 대체선박): 4회* 운항(4시간) 정박( 시간20분) = 5시간20분, 1일 24시간 / 5시간20분 = 4.61 회

면허신청 선박(쾌속선): 2회* 운항(3시간) + 정박(3시간) 6시간, 1일 13시간 / 6시간 = 2.16 회0 여객 및 화물 수송실적 산정[기존 운항 선박] 해운조합 수송실적 자료(최근 3년간 수송실적)[아라퀸즈호] 1년간 실적으로 환산하여 산출(아래 표와 같음)(면허신청 선박] 여객수송실적(화물 수송 없음)- 3년간 평균 운항일수: (썬플라워호 260일 + 아라퀸즈호 247일) / 2 = 253일- 여객 1인당 평균 운임: 기존 운항선박(5척) 평균 운임 / 5 = 202,438원 / 5 = 40,487원- 연간 제공가능 여객수송 능력: 여객정원 600명 x 1일 운항가능 횟수 2회 x 3년 평균 운항일수 253일 = 303,600명<아라퀸즈호 운항일수·수송실적 및 운임 산정내역 >

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 14, 17, 20, Eul evidence 1, 2, 17, 18, Eul evidence 18, Eul evidence 1 (including each branch number), the purport of the whole pleadings

C) Determination

(1) Determination as to ① and ② argument

(A) Inasmuch as the performance record for one year of a vessel includes the number of navigation days, the number of navigation days for one year shall also be considered when calculating the performance record. There is no provision regarding the method of calculating the number of navigation days to be applied when converting the performance record into the performance record. Therefore, setting the number of navigation days to be applied when converting the performance record falls within the scope of the Defendant’s discretion, which is an administrative agency, and is in violation of the principle of good faith or equality, and it cannot be deemed unlawful unless it is deemed that the discretion was abused or abused.

해상운송의 특성상 1년 중 기상악화 등 불가피한 사유로 운항하지 못하는 날이 있게 되는 것은 경험칙상 명백하므로, 원고승계참가인의 ① 주장과 같이 아라퀸 지호의 운항기간(13일) 중 실제 운항일수(11일)를 1년간 운항일수로 환산하여 인정하는 경우(11일/13일 365일), 실제로 운항가능한 일수보다 1년간 운항일수를 높게 산정하게 되어 부당하다.

Therefore, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 1 is without merit.

(B) The following circumstances may also be known under the above facts and the relevant laws and regulations:

즉 ① 이 사건 규칙에는 예비용 선박의 경우 최근 3년간 평균 운항일수 산정시 해당 항로 운항선박의 최근 3년간 평균 운항일수를 적용한다고 규정할 뿐 1년 미만의 운항 선박의 운항일수를 산정하는 방법에 대하여 정하고 있지 않은 점, Ⓒ 썬플라워호와 아라퀸즈호의 출항통제기준이 동일하여 1), 기상악화로 인하여 썬플라워호가 출항하지 못할 경우에는 아라퀸즈호 역시 출항통제를 받게 되는 점, Ⓒ 아라퀸즈호는 이 사건 항로에 관하여 2013. 4.경 해상여객운송사업계획 변경인가를 받고 2013. 7. 19. 운항을 시작하여 이 사건 면허신청일 전월까지의 운항일수가 11일에 불과하였을 뿐 이후 계속적으로 운항할 것이 예정되어 있는 선박이어서, 일시적으로 운항할 것을 예정하고 있는 예비용 선박과 다르로, 아라퀸즈호의 운항일수 산정에 예비용 선박의 규정을 유추적용하여야 하는 것은 아닌 점 등을 고려하면, 피고가 이 사건 규칙 제2호, 마목을 유추적용하지 아니하고 썬플라워호의 직전 1년간 운항일수를 적용하여 아라퀸즈호의 1년간 운항실적을 산정한 것은 피고의 재량의 범위 내에 속하는 것으로서, 관련 규정에 위배되거나 불합리하여 위법하다고 볼 수 없다.

Therefore, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 2 is also without merit.

(2) Judgment on the assertion

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the arguments in Gap 2, 4, 16, and 20 testimonys, it is difficult for the defendant to calculate the monthly number of passengers by distinguishing the number of passengers from that of the 1-month passenger transport service route by five months, and the monthly number of passengers is less than that of the 1-month transport service route, and the monthly number of passengers is less than that of the 1-month transport service route by five months, and the monthly number of passengers is less than that of the 1-month transport service route by five months, and the monthly number of passengers is less than that of the 1-month transport service route by five months, and the monthly number of passengers is less than that of the 1-month transport service route by five months, and the monthly number of passengers is less than that of the 1-month transport service route. However, it is recognized that the monthly number of passengers is less than that of the 1-month transport service route and the monthly number of passengers is less than that of the 1-month transport service route.

Therefore, the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's argument is without merit.

(3) 4. Judgment on the argument

(A) No. 1 of the instant Rule No. 7. The average fare of the vessel applying for a license is the expected average passenger fare of the vessel applying for a license, in the event that there is a vessel of a similar type in the current passenger vessel, the average fare per passenger per passenger of the vessel operating on the date of applying for a license.

위 인정사실에서 본 바와 같이 아라퀸즈호는 이 사건 항로에 관하여

The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor should invoke only the average per capita (43,715 won) of the instant disposition, because it is included in the passenger ship operating along the instant service route as of the date of application for the instant license, because it was included in the passenger ship operating along the instant service route as of July 19, 2013, after obtaining authorization to revise the maritime passenger transport service plan around April 2013.

(B) On the other hand, as seen in the above facts, Oral Tech was replaced by Aradar on or around April 2013, and thus, it is not included in the passenger ship as of the date of the application for the instant license. Moreover, Oral Rodar and C Podar are temporary substitute ships operating more than about 30 days at around 1 to 20 days, which cannot be operated by a ship inspection, etc., and to substitute Sal Podar, it cannot be deemed as passenger ships operating along the instant service route as of the date of the application for the instant license, since it cannot be deemed as a temporary substitute ship, and it cannot be deemed as a ship similar to the instant Podar vessel, in that it is a temporary substitute ship. Therefore, the Defendant’s calculation of the expected average passenger fares of the instant vessel for which the Defendant applied for the instant license was unlawful, including the average fare per passenger per person per Oral Podar, Oral la, and flas 1.

Therefore, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 5 is justified.

(4) Judgment on the argument

The Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Intervenor (In response to the assertion, the Defendant asserts that, as the concept of a preliminary-use vessel and a temporary-use substitute vessel are significantly different, the provision on a preliminary-use vessel cannot be inferredly applied to a temporary-use substitute vessel, the application of subparagraph 2 (e) of the Enforcement Rule of the instant case cannot be applied by analogy to the Oral plug and Cpla, a temporary-use substitute vessel

According to the interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations and the practice of maritime transport, the difference between the temporary substitute vessel and the vessel for preliminary use claimed by the Defendant is as follows, which is recognized by the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff. ① Preliminary vessel is a new vessel prepared by an existing licensed enterprise to operate as a substitute vessel for licensed vessel in the event it is impossible to operate due to the breakdown of the vessel, etc., and the temporary substitute vessel is a vessel temporarily substituted only for the period of temporary navigation to undergo a ship inspection (in this case, the temporary substitute vessel is a substitute vessel at around 30 days from January to February of each year, and the instant service route is operated only for the period of temporary stop of navigation at around 30 days, as seen earlier). Accordingly, although the type of operation of the alternative vessel is similar to the vessel for preliminary use, the alternative vessel becomes a substitute vessel during the period of operation between the vessels, and there is a difference between the license vessel and the vessel for preliminary use in that all the results of operation of the alternative vessel are excluded.

As seen above, the difference between the above temporary substitute vessel and the vessel for reserve use and the above recognition facts, Oshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhgggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Therefore, the 6th argument of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is without merit.

(5) Judgment on the assertion 7

The standard point of determining the illegality of an administrative disposition is not the market price of the judgment, but the time of the disposition, which is not the time of the disposition, but the determination of the illegality based on the law and factual state at the time of the administrative disposition, and it is not affected by the amendment or repeal of the law or changes in the actual state after the disposition, and it does not mean that the materials existing at the time of the disposition or materials submitted to the administrative agency are not determined as illegal. Thus, the court may determine the objective facts known to the administrative agency at the time of the closing of arguments at the trial court and determine the illegality of the disposition based on such facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1903, May

In this case, the defendant calculated the average transport rate at the time of the disposition of this case. The defendant's average transport volume of Snchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, which was prepared by the plaintiff or the plaintiff succeeding participant, was not disputed between the parties. However, according to subparagraph 1 of this case's Regulation, the average transport volume of the ship applying for a license shall be the average transport volume for the last three years, which is regarded as the same route as the service route for which the license is applied. The average transport volume shall be the average transport volume per ton (based on the applied tonnage) of the cargo as of the date of the application for the license in the case of the carpetghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, which is recognized by the data submitted at the time of the closure of the fact-finding trial, and it is reasonable to apply the actual transport volume of the cargo to Gap 21, Gap 222 (the plaintiff'skhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhn).

Therefore, the plaintiff's succeeding intervenor's assertion that the actual transportation revenue of Sshack Scrop is to be applied in calculating the average transportation revenue rate related to the disposition of this case.

(6) 평균 운송수입률의 재계산 위 (3)항에서 본 바와 같이 오리엔트호, 오션플라워호, 씨플라워호는 이 사건 면허신청일 현재 이 사건 항로를 운항중인 여객선이 아니므로, 이 사건 면허신청선박의 예상 평균 여객운임(Fp')은 썬플라워호의 여객 1인당 평균 운임과 아라퀸즈호의 여객 1인당 평균 운임의 평균인 46,074원 (43,715원 + 48,434원) / 2, 원 미만 버림]으로 보아야 할 뿐만 아니라, 오리엔트호, 호선플라워호, 씨플라호의 예상수입액은 이 사건 면허신청에 관한 평균 운송수입률 산정시 최대 운송능력을 기준으로 한 예상수입 액(분모, 부분)에서 제외하는 것이 타당하다. 또한 위 (5)항에서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 처분과 관련한 평균 운송수입률을 산정함에 있어서는 썬플라워호의 실제 운송수입을 적용하여야 하는데, [별표 4] 목록 기재와 같이 썬플라워호의 최근 3년간 평균 화물운송수입은 580,051,133원(부가가치세 제외), 화물톤당 평균 운임은 76,808원(부가가치세 제외)이다. 이에 따라 평균 운송수입률을 계산하면 [별지 2] 목록 기재와 같이 23.57%이 된다.

(7) Sub-committee

Therefore, as above, the fixed average transportation revenue rate is merely 23.57% as stated in the list (attached Form 2) and is below 25%, which is the transportation demand standard at the time of the instant disposition. Thus, it is necessary to further examine the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion that the Plaintiff failed to meet the remaining transportation facility standards and the safety concerns of marine transportation, or the assertion of deviation from or abuse of discretionary authority. without any need to examine, the instant application for license is deemed to have failed to meet the requirements for license for marine passenger transportation services, and the Defendant

2) Determination on the necessity of a judgment on assessment

A) Relevant legal principles

In a case where an administrative disposition is unlawful, in principle, revocation thereof is a matter of principle, and in a case where an alteration to the illegal disposition is considerably inappropriate for public welfare, a judgment that does not allow revocation thereof may be rendered. In a case where there is no clear assertion of the parties with respect to such a ruling, ex officio determination may be made based on various circumstances recorded in the records even in a case where there is no clear assertion of the parties. However, whether it is considerably inappropriate for public welfare, which is the requirement thereof, shall be determined by comparing and comparing the need to revoke or alter the illegal administrative disposition and the situation against public welfare that may arise due to such revocation or alteration (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du2506, Sept. 22,

B) Determination

개정된 해운법(2015. 1. 6. 법률 제13002호로 개정된 것, 2015. 7. 7. 시행)에서는 해상여객운송사업 면허기준 중 수송수요기준을 폐지하는 한편, 운항능력과 자본금을 면허기준으로 추가하였는데(종전 제5조 제1항 제1호 삭제, 제5호 개정), 그 개정 이유는 화물과적, 선박평형수의 부족, 화물고박 불량 등 내항 여객운송사업자의 안전관리 소홀과 함께 내항여객선 안전관리시스템 전반의 문제가 내재되어 발생하는 사고를 방지하기 위하여 여객운송사업자의 권한과 책임을 명확히 하고, 안전관련 규정을 정비하며, 처벌수준을 강화하는 등 내항여객선 안전관리체계를 혁신하는 한편, 노후 여객선의 신조·대체 활성화, 수송수요 기준 등 진입장벽의 철폐 등 내항 여객운송사업 구조에 대한 전반적인 개편이 필요하다는 요청에 따른 것이다. 아울러 내항 화물선은 2001년부터 유류세액 인상분에 대하여 정부가 지원해 주고 있으나, 최근 일부 내항화물운송 사업자의 부정수급 문제가 제기되고 있어 이를 방지하기 위한 대책도 필요한바, 이에 내항여객선 안전강화를 위하여 안전 관련 규정 및 면허체계를 전면 정비하고, 내항화 물운송사업자의 유류세 지원금 부정수급 방지를 위한 처벌을 강화함은 물론, 그 밖에 현행 제도의 운영상 나타난 일부 미비점을 개선·보완하려는 데에도 그 개정 이유가 있다.이 사건의 경우 앞서 거시한 각 증거들 및 이 법원에 현저한 사실에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 2014. 5. 30. 아라퀸즈호의 포항-울릉간 해상여객운송사업 면허가 취소되었고, 광운고속해운이 위 면허취소처분의 적법성을 다투는 항고소송(대구지방 법원 2014구합21358호)을 제기하였으나 2014. 11. 14. 제1심 법원으로부터 청구기각판결을 선고받았으며, 광운고속해운이 위 판결에 불복하여 항소를 제기하였으나(대구고등 법원 2015두4021호) 2015. 11. 20. 위 법원으로부터 항소기각판결을 선고받은 사실, 참가인의 선박(우리누리 1호)은 2014. 10. 1. 운항을 시작하였는데(을가 제45호증), 2011년경부터 울릉도 여행객이 급격히 증가하기 시작하여 2013년도 울릉도 방문객은 2010년도에 비하여 176.5% 증가한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

In addition, the defendant asserts that if the disposition of this case is revoked, the defendant's disposition will cause irreparable damage to the intervenor who purchased the ship with trust in the defendant's disposition, and ② the inconvenience of the users of passenger ships, including islandrs, due to the operation of multiple navigation routes between ports and ports by the intervenor's ship operation, the inconvenience of the use of marine transportation by the users of passenger ships, including islandrs, is resolved. According to the above facts acknowledged, if the disposition of this case is revoked, damage equivalent to the cost of the purchase of the ship would occur to the intervenor, and as multiple routes between ports are not operated, it would cause inconvenience to the use of

However, as seen above, it is difficult to see that the service route of this case is in operation of Scing Sclas, which is the previous service vessel, and it is too large to the extent that it could not cause inconvenience to the users of passenger ships because it is possible to put a substitute vessel during the service period of Scing Sclas, and that the service route of this case is applied for a license for marine passenger transportation services. If the disposition of this case falls short of the criteria for transport demand, which was one of the criteria for the license at the time of the disposition, and thus it is illegal, if it is maintained because it falls short of the criteria for transport demand, it would result in another business operator's demand to reduce the disadvantage without any justifiable reason. This situation goes against the purpose of the Marine Transportation Act in order to ensure fair competition among marine passenger transportation business operators and maintain the order of transport. If the disposition of this case is unlawful because it does not meet the criteria for transport demand as at the time of the disposition, it is reasonable to revoke it and order an operator newly in conformity with the amended Act to obtain a license for marine passenger transportation services of this case.

C) Sub-determination

Therefore, in the case of this case, the intervenor's purchase of the ship operating the sea route of this case with considerable expenses, or because multiple routes between port-Ulle and port-Ulle are not operated, causing inconvenience to the use of marine transportation by the residents of Ulleungdo and travel, it cannot be deemed that the cancellation of the illegal disposition of this case is significantly inappropriate for public welfare because it fails to meet the transport demand criteria, which was a license requirement for marine passenger transportation services, at the time of the disposition, and it cannot be deemed that the modification of the disposition of this case

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion. Thus, the appeal of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the defendant decided to revoke the patent of this case against the intervenor on September 3, 2013 and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges

The presiding judge, senior judge and public officer;

Judges Boli-a

Judges fixed-term

Note tin

1) The plaintiff succeeding intervenor did not dispute the plaintiff's succession intervenor.

2) For example, 10 days (20 times) for Sshacking Sicking at September 201, 201, 36,80 for passenger transport capacity, or 36,80 for Sshicking at September 2012, 200 for three days (6) for passenger transport capacity.

j) Passenger transport capacity: 49,680 Written Evidence (A evidence 20)

(iii) in the case of carpet ships, inasmuch as separate tariffs are imposed on the vehicles (Evidence A(23), the vehicle transportation revenue also includes the freight importation;

B. only data on the number of vehicles transported as data on vehicle transport revenues for 3 years in Snishing, are submitted, on the tonnage of the vehicle.

The cargo tonnage and won as stated in Gap evidence No. 22, which is the material for actual transportation revenue of Sshacking Sclash, not submitted at all.

In light of the conformity of the metric tons (Evidence A 20) reported by the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor as the result of the transportation of cargo, the Defendant’s disposition of this case

In calculating the average transport rate, in this case, it is deemed not to include the transport of vehicles or the transport of postal items.

In calculating the average transportation revenue rate, vehicle transportation revenue and mail transportation revenue shall be excluded.