The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In general, in administrative legal relations, in order to apply the principle of protecting trust to an act of an administrative agency in relation to a violation of the principle of protecting trust, the first administrative agency should name the public opinion that is the object of trust to an individual, second, the administrative agency's trust in the name of its opinion that is justifiable should not be attributable to the individual. Third, the individual should have done any act against the above opinion list; fourth, the administrative agency should have done any act against the above opinion list, thereby infringing on the individual's trust in the name of the opinion list; last, if an administrative disposition is taken pursuant to the above opinion list, it should not be likely to seriously undermine the public interest or legitimate interests of a third party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Du8684 Decided September 28, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Du13592 Decided February 24, 2006, etc.). In determining whether an administrative agency, which is one of the above requirements, has a public opinion statement, it shall be determined by the substance in light of the organization and duties of the person in charge, the specific circumstance leading to the relevant speech and behavior, and the other party’s trust possibility.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18380 delivered on September 12, 1997, etc.). The lower court recognized that the Defendant sent a public door to the lux City Mayor on the ground that the Defendant received an application for change of the passenger transport business plan of Plaintiff H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for change of the passenger transport business plan, but this merely requested the competent authority of the main office to be transferred to verify the authenticity of the application for change of the business plan with the content of transferring the principal office of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., a chartered transport business operator, to verify the business plan, and even if the Defendant fails to meet the registration standards for the chartered bus transport business