In a case where an automobile rental company requested an Internet travel agency to sell rental car, but the Internet travel agency took a disposition of partial suspension of business on the ground that it violated the terms and conditions of automobile rental fees reported in advance by the Governor to the automobile rental company, the case holding that the disposition is lawful and that it did not deviate from or abuse discretion.

In a case where the automobile rental company entered into an agreement with the Internet travel agency for the sale of rental car and the payment of passenger service fees was made, but the Internet travel agency supports 15 to 20% of the amount of use to the customer, and the automobile rental company violated the terms and conditions of automobile rental fees reported in advance to the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, the case holding that the case held that the Internet travel agency's receipt of the rental contract from the customer on its website is not an independent car rental business entity, but an automobile rental contract with the customer as an agent for the sales of the automobile rental company or its employee, and the discount of the rental fees is deemed to have been made by the automobile rental company, so it is legitimate for the automobile rental company to take part of the disposition of automobile rental business for the automobile rental company and there is no violation of law of deviation or abuse of discretionary power.

Article 85(1)11 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 9432 of Feb. 6, 2009); Article 43(1)6 [Attachment Table 2] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21399 of Mar. 31, 2009) (see current Article 43(1)6 [Attachment Table 3] (see current Article 43(1)6 [Attachment Table 3]

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeon Soo-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Governor (Attorney Kim Shin-soo, Counsel for defendant)

January 13, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of partial suspension of business (30 days) against the plaintiff on June 3, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff Company is operating rent-a-car business with a parking lot in the place of business, parking lot, and Jeju-si 1dong (hereinafter omitted) as a corporation for rent-a-car business (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”). The Plaintiff Company is operating rent-a-car business with a parking lot in the workplace, parking lot, and Jeju-si 1dong.

B. Jeju Special Self-Governing Province has enacted the Ordinance on the Passenger Transport Service of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter “instant Ordinance”) which requires rental enterprises to report in advance the terms and conditions of automobile rental fees to Jeju Special Self-Governing Province in order to correct the disorderly price structure of rental car charges in Jeju area. The said Ordinance is in force from July 10, 2008.

C. The Plaintiff Company reported the terms and conditions of lease to the Defendant, along with the documents stating the basis for calculating the cost of the fees and other charges in accordance with the instant ordinances. On May 9, 2009, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff Company that it should submit its opinion on the hearing by the 25th day of the same month on the ground that it violated the reported terms and conditions of lease to the 12 vehicles as indicated below, and on June 3, 2009, disposed of the Plaintiff Company from June 11 of the same year, Article 85(1)11 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 9432 of Feb. 6, 2009; hereinafter “passenger Transport Service Act”); Article 43(1)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21399 of Mar. 31, 2009; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act”) to the Plaintiff Company from June 30 to 30, 2009.

Details of violations of rental terms and conditions

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 고객명 차량번호(차종) 대여시간 신고요금 대여요금 위반사항 1 소외 1 34허9435 (NF소나타) 2009. 3. 27. 14:00부터 54시간 138,000원 128,000원 10,000원 할인 2 소외 2 01허4056 (NF소나타) 2009. 3. 26. 20:20부터 85시간 237,000원 218,500원 18,500원 할인 3 소외 3 71허6903 (스타렉스) 2009. 3. 22. 09:30부터 54시간 196,000원 179,000원 17,000원 할인 4 소외 4 34허9442 (NF소나타) 2009. 3. 27. 18:00부터 48시간 116,000원 104,000원 12,000원 할인 5 소외 5 01허4034 (뉴카니발) 2009. 3. 23. 00:00부터 77시간 305,000원 250,000원 55,000원 할인 6 소외 6 71허6902 (그랜드카니발) 2009. 3. 26. 11:40부터 77시간 352,000원 284,000원 68,000원 할인 7 소외 7 33허9340 (카니발) 2009. 3. 26. 17:35부터 70시간 234,000원 188,000원 46,000원 할인 8 소외 8 01허4025 (뉴카니발) 2009. 3. 25. 13:25부터 54시간 242,000원 194,000원 48,000원 할인 9 소외 9 01허4029 (토스카) 2009. 3. 24. 17:00부터 72시간 162,000원 129,600원 32,400원 할인 10 소외 10 34허9436 (NF소나타) 2009. 3. 24. 20:00부터 72시간 174,000원 139,200원 34,800원 할인 11 소외 11 34허9434 (NF소나타) 2009. 3. 26. 17:10부터 89시간 232,000원 182,000원 50,000원 할인 12 소외 12 33허9307 (라세티) 2009. 3. 29. 19:40부터 62시간 126,000원 98,400원 27,600원 할인

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 2 to 1 to 3, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff company's assertion

① The Plaintiff Company: (a) requested rental car sales agency to the Internet travel agent, “Seman-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) First, the Plaintiff Company’s assertion that it did not violate the terms and conditions of rental reported by the Plaintiff Company, since the travel agent offered discount benefits.

(A) Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff Company entered into an agreement with the Internet travel agent (hereinafter “Saman-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri

2) The Plaintiff Company paid 2,297,750 won (=6,565,00 won x 35%) of total sales (based on filing fees) during the above period, which is equivalent to 2,297,750 won (i.e., 6,565,00 won x 35%) (i.e., 954,250 won) paid by the travel company to the Internet, and the remainder of 1,285,50 won (i.e., 2,297,750 won - - 2,750 won - 954,250 won - 58,000 won - 14,761,000 won (based on filing fees) during the above period - 5,160,350 won (based on filing fees) paid to the Jeju Internet Tour company - 3606,3650 won (excluding the remainder of KRW 360,5050%) paid in advance to the Plaintiff Company -63636363650 and 50.7.7.5000 won

3) On the website of the scenicism, if the screen is short of the rental fee search and reservation screen, the phrase “at least 20% of the amount used for each period of tourist destination users shall be added from the purchase price of the new admission ticket at the time of purchase of the tourist destination admission ticket.” On the website of the Jeju Internet Access, the phrase “at least 1 rental fee search and reservation screen is set free of charge for cryccate fee search and reservation screen.” On the website of the Jeju Internet Access Access, the phrase “at the time of purchase of the tourist admission ticket, crycium 20 to 15% of the amount used for crycium crycium ＋ 15% + at the time of purchase of the tourist admission ticket + at the Jeju Internet Tour. at the low-income Internet travel company, the phrase “at the cryp loan support fee through the tourist destination Fund” appears in the screen “at the expense of Jeju-do crycian lending to relieve the customer from the burden on the customer.”

4) Fees for customers at issue in the instant disposition are set out below.

Non-party 1 (Omission), Non-party 1 (148,00 won) 1 (20,000 won) 2.3, non-party 2, non-party 2, 30,000 won on March 25, 2009 218,50 won 18,500 won on March 13, 2009 3, non-party 3, 196, 90, 17, 17, 1000 won on March 17, 200, 200, 30, 200, 30, 17, 200, 17, 100, 100 won on March 17, 2009, 200, 30, 40,000 won on the Internet (20,000 won on May 2, 20, 2005).

5) The Defendant set up a civil petition No. 4th week 1 due to the rent-a-car business in Jeju region, and set up a civil petition, which is the largest tourist destination and has a lot of demand for rental car due to the geographical characteristics of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, which is an island. As the recent increase in domestic and foreign tourists, the demand for rental car has been significantly increased due to the increase in domestic and foreign tourists, and in the case of rental car, it is necessary to spread it as the so-called “balone fee” of tourists due to a large amount of increase in the number of scargs, and there is a need to eradicate the excessive supply of rental car rental companies, and there is a need to establish the instant ordinances in light of the fact that there is a need to eradicate the excessive supply of rental car rental companies, the cost calculation of rental fees and other documents stating the basis for calculating rental fees in detail regarding the rental fees, rather than the terms and conditions of the rental agreement stipulated in the Passenger Transport Service Act.

6) Afterwards, the Defendant: (a) instructed car rental business associations and car rental business entities in the Jeju area to comply with the reported rental fees through official doors; (b) notified the relevant administrative agencies of the request for compliance with the reported rental fees; and (c) recommended each car rental business entity to select voluntary advisers to improve the quality of services for customers, such as resolving complaints through compliance with the rental terms and conditions; (d) several times, the car rental business association and the president of the Jeju automobile rental business association and the representative of the car rental business in the Jeju area (such as discounts and increases over the reported rental fees) proposed to take strong administrative measures such as business suspension; and (e) requested the online travel business entity representatives in the Do to refund the rental fees due to the event of the refund of the rental fees due to the Internet events and the travel convenience, etc.; and (e) requested each car rental business entity to directly delete the rental fees from 10% to 20% of the rental fees in cash.

7) Accordingly, in order to stabilize rent-a-car business, a car rental business association selected voluntary advisers and made items of violation of the rental terms and conditions and was discovered. Nonparty 13, the representative director of the Plaintiff company, appointed as a director on February 22, 2006, agreed to the enactment of the ordinance to prevent automobile rental business operators from making unreasonable discounts and guest businesses. On June 24, 2008, a car rental business association was commissioned as voluntary advisers. On September 2008 and around January 13, 2009, when the violation of the rental terms and conditions was discovered and became subject to administrative disposition, the car rental business association withdrawn from the car rental business association on January 13, 2009.

8) On June 2009, the automobile rental business entity in Jeju area inserted a provision that “In the event that the vehicle rental business entity does not directly lend the rental to the lessee, the company may arrange the rental for the lessee, or lend the rental through the travel brokerage business entity acting as a sales agent for the company, the company may pay the rental fee within the limit of 15% of the loan to the travel brokerage business entity,” and the Plaintiff also inserted the above provision and revised the rental agreement.

[Based on the recognition] A’s non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 2-3, Gap evidence 4-1 through 12, Gap evidence 5-1 through 5, Gap evidence 6-1 through 4, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 5, Eul evidence 2-1 through 7, Eul evidence 2-3 through 8, Eul evidence 10-1, 2, Eul evidence 11-1 through 6, witness Kim Jong-sung’s testimony, some of the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-sik, the fact-finding results against the defendant of this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole.

(B) Determination

According to the relevant laws and regulations as seen earlier, a car rental business entity under the Automobile Transport Business Act is not allowed to operate a car rental business by using all or part of another car rental business entity or a car rental business entity with or without compensation (Articles 35 and 12 of the Automobile Transport Business Act). In order to entrust the management of car rental business, permission from the relevant Mayor/Do Governor is obtained in order to entrust the management of car rental business (Article 32 of the Automobile Transport Business Act), and even in this case, the management is not entrusted to a person who is not a car rental business entity (Article 32 of the Automobile Transport Business Act). Thus, even if the Plaintiff Company entered into an agreement with the Internet travel business entity to arrange with the Internet travel business entity and pay rental fees to the customer on its website, it should be deemed that the Internet travel business entity is not a car rental business entity as an independent body of the Internet travel business entity, but rather a sales agent of the Plaintiff Company or its employee.

In addition, considering the following circumstances revealed in the above recognition, i.e., the Ordinance of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province because of the increase in demand for car rental businesses due to the geographical characteristics of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province and the increase of tourist demand, it is difficult for the company to set and uniformly report rent rates for the Jeju area, such as various disputes arising between customers due to the increase in the size of rent-a-car businesses. The defendant emphasizes that each of the automobile rental businesses should comply with the terms and conditions of rent-a-car businesses reported in order to promote the development of tourism through the stabilization of rent-a-car businesses through the Ordinance of this case, and it is difficult for the company to pay discount fees to the company's 6-a-car businesses for the above reasons that it was illegal for the company's 9-a-car businesses to pay discount fees to the company's 9-a-car businesses, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the act of the company's 13-a-car businesses' act was illegal for the reason that it was not illegal for the company's use of discount fees.

(2) Next, in full view of the purport of the argument of mistake of facts against the customer non-party 8, in light of the health unit, Gap evidence 2-3, and evidence No. 4-8, the whole argument as to the non-party 8, the non-party 8 promised to pay for the 9-person vehicle for the 54-hour rental fee (196,000 won for the 54-hour rental fee). The plaintiff company is found to have given the non-party 8 the 54-hour rental fee for the 9-person rental vehicle (242,000 won for the 54-hour rental fee). However, the plaintiff company's vehicle rental fee for the 9-person rental vehicle paid by the non-party 8 is more than 2,000 won for the 194,000 won for the 194,000 won for the 9-person rental fee (the plaintiff company is liable for the 54-hour rental fee). This part of the argument is without merit.

(3) Lastly, as to the assertion of deviation from or abuse of discretionary power, the instant disposition is not a disposition taken without legal basis since it was conducted based on Article 85(1)11 of the Passenger Transport Service Act as seen earlier, Article 43(1)6 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act. Article 85(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides that “If a passenger transport service provider falls under any of the following subparagraphs, it may order the revocation of the license, permission, authorization or registration, or the suspension of all or part of the business for a fixed period not exceeding 6 months, or the alteration of the business plan due to the abolition of routes or reduction of automobiles, etc., the administrative agency gives a certain discretion to the Plaintiff’s special circumstances of the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, namely, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province’s maximum tourist destination, and thus, it is not necessary for the Defendant to eliminate the Plaintiff’s excessive demand of rental cars due to the increase of passenger transport service in Korea and abroad, and thus, it is not necessary for the Plaintiff’s new business suspension of air transport service.”

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Kim Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) ① Marenter car defect dispute, ② excessive claims for repair costs for announcement of vehicle history and dispute on rest compensation, ③ a civil petition related to vehicle entry and departure notice (request for the implementation of the vehicle fuel FUL system), ④ a dispute arising from the burden of a civil petitioner on a vehicle parking charge in an airport.