[1] Whether a disposition to accept a report on change of a business plan under the Passenger Transport Service Act is an administrative disposition subject to administrative appeal (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that there is a legal interest in seeking revocation of the above repair disposition against an existing airport bus transportation business entity in a competitive relationship by using a bus stops together with the existing airport bus transportation business entity due to the repair and alteration report of the passenger transport business that changes the bus stops for an airport bus transportation business entity

[3] Whether a change in the location of a bus stops outside the jurisdiction of a bus transportation business entity is subject to the change in the business plan (affirmative)

[1] Since the act of the competent authority accepting a report on change of a business plan by a passenger transport business operator is an act which creates the legal effect of changing the business plan of a passenger transport business operator, a person whose rights or interests are infringed due to a repair disposition or rejection disposition by an administrative agency may seek cancellation of such disposition through administrative litigation, and thus the above acceptance disposition constitutes an administrative disposition

[2] The case holding that there is a legal interest for an existing airport bus transportation business entity to seek revocation of the above repair disposition in case where the repair and alteration disposition of passenger transport business by changing bus stops for airport bus transportation business entities became in a competitive relationship by using a bus stops together with the existing airport bus transportation business entity

[3] A bus stops are places where automobiles used for passenger transport business board and alight passengers, which mean a certain stop space and sign, and physical facilities equipped with ticketing facilities, not including a certain area, but not divided into a stop and a stop and a specific platform within the area. Thus, a change in the location of a stop outside the jurisdiction of a bus transport business entity is not an insignificant matter subject to reporting, but an alteration in the business plan is not an insignificant matter but an alteration in the location of a stop outside the jurisdiction of the bus transport business entity.

[1] Article 11 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Articles 31 and 32 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 2 (1) 1 and Article 3 of the Administrative Appeals Act / [2] Article 6 (1) 1 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 7 (3) and (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 11 (1), 57, and Article 68 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, Article 32

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4450 decided Oct. 25, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2881)

Han-jin Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Han Man-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Minister of Construction and Transportation

Seoul Bus Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Gyeong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Law Firm Free Law Firm, Attorneys Southern-ho et al.

March 25, 2004

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition that the Defendant rendered on July 14, 2003 that "the Governor of Jeollabuk-do rendered on October 2, 2002 by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do shall revoke the disposition of accepting a report on change in the plan for passenger transport business (airport buses) by the Plaintiff on October 2, 2002" shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 12, 1996, after obtaining a limited license for passenger transport business (airport bus) from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do branch, the Plaintiff was operating a passenger transport business from the front of the Jeonju metropolitan hotel to the Incheon city via the IIC, Highway, 63 building, and the Ganpo Airport. On October 2, 2002, the Plaintiff reported the change of the location of '63 buildings' to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do branch office of Jeollabuk-do, in the 63 buildings located in the 63 premises of the Dong-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "Dong-dong parking lot"), and notified the Defendant and the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City of the repair disposition (hereinafter referred to as the "repair disposition" in this case) after receiving the above report from the head of the Dong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the "city passenger transport business operator's license"). However, on the same day, the passenger bus platform was installed at the 63 premises of the passenger transport business (hereinafter referred to as the "airport passenger bus operator's").

B. On December 30, 2002, the intervenor filed an administrative appeal to request the Defendant to revoke the repair disposition of this case via the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on December 30, 2002, and the Defendant rendered a ruling to revoke the repair disposition of this case on February 4, 2003 (hereinafter “instant ruling”).

The reason for the ruling of this case is that the change of the location of 63 buildings stops to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, which was reported by the Plaintiff to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, is not provided for in passenger transport service laws and regulations, and therefore, it should be viewed as authorized matters. The Governor of Jeollabuk-do, upon consultation with the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City before approving the change of the location of the bus stops, did not determine whether to approve the change of the project plan after requesting the change of the bus stops

[Evidence] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, Gap evidence 4-5 and 6

2. The parties' assertion

The defendant and the intervenor asserted that the ruling of this case is lawful, and the plaintiff asserts that the ruling of this case is unlawful as follows.

A. Part on the judgment on the main safety of the instant judgment

(1) Eligibility for administrative appeals for the instant repair disposition

The plaintiff did not change the existing '63 building' bus stops to another place, but did not change only the specific platform within the same area within the '63 building' bus stops, and the Governor of Jeollabuk-do accepted the report, and the acceptance of the report is merely an act of fact that does not affect the rights and obligations of interested parties, such as the plaintiff and the intervenor, and it is not subject to administrative appeal.

(2) The intervenor's eligibility for the administrative appeal applicant

On January 22, 2001, since the intervenor obtained a limited license for passenger transport business (airport bus) and passenger transport business plan (hereinafter referred to as "business plan") from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on January 22, 2001, the intervenor's route overlaps with the plaintiff's route, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor should have consulted with the Governor of Jeollabuk-do having jurisdiction over the plaintiff's route in accordance with the passenger transport business-related Acts and subordinate statutes, but did not make it. Therefore, since the intervenor's business is based on an illegal administrative disposition, the intervenor did not have a legal interest that may be infringed due to the repair disposition of this case, and merely has a factual and economic interest, there is no

B. Part on the judgment on the merits of the instant judgment

On December 30, 1997, the Plaintiff was duly authorized to revise its business plan from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, and was stopping at the 63th '63 building' stations, and the Plaintiff only used the dong parking lot in its premises with the understanding of 63CT Co., Ltd. managing the 63 buildings, and it was no longer possible to use the dong parking lot due to the circumstances of 63CT, and the west platform used by the Intervenor operating the same airport bus transportation business as the Plaintiff is located within the scope of "63 buildings" within the meaning of "63 buildings". Since the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor having jurisdiction over the stopping place has the obligation to allow the Plaintiff to use the stop without changing the stopping or operation system, it is judged that this is not only subject to the authorization for change of business plan but also subject to reporting, and therefore, it was unlawful for the instant ruling to be made as unlawful on the ground that there was no obligation for consultation with the Mayor/Do Governor of Jeollabuk-do in advance.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Facts of recognition.

A. The Plaintiff’s acquisition of limited licenses and modification of the business plan

(1) The Plaintiff (former trade name is the Korea Tourist Port Corporation and the Korea Coast Guard Corporation) had its principal office in 602-24, Young-gu, Seodong-gu, Seodong-gu, Seodong-gu, Seoul and added the passenger transport business to its business for the purpose of November 15, 1996.

(2) On December 12, 1996, the Plaintiff obtained the following limited license and business plan from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do.

The term of validity of the limitation on the scope of the limited services for non-city bus transportation business for the purpose of the business in the table contained in the main sentence, and the term of validity from December 12, 1996 to December 11, 1999 (not submitted for three years) of the license terms and conditions (for three years).

1. 10 10 10 10 c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c.

○ The name of the bus stops and stops by operation system from the distance of 32.0km to the bus stops or stops: 32.0km, the name of the bus stops or stops 2.0km to the Kimpo-si (international airport): 243.0km m 243.0km and the name of the bus stops or stops and the name of their locations or stations : 45 square meters in the area of 627-3 bus stops in the Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Nowon-gu, 45 square meters in the size of 45 square meters, large bus stops or stops 309 square meters in the size of 50 square meters in the size of 309 stops in the Yae-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, and one large bus stops or stops: the Kimpo International Airport, the 274 square meters in the size of 274 square meters in the area of Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu and the 2745 square.

(3) On August 2, 1997, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the change of the business plan (the first change) from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do as follows. The reason was that: (a) around July 1997, for the smooth transportation of participants in international conferences held in Jeollabuk-do and foreign tourists, the number of times and hours of operation were extended; and (b) for the convenience of the tourists in Ireland located in Jeollabuk-do, it was an extension of the number of times and hours of operation; and (c) via the bus stops for

10 10 15 times in 275.0.0 15 times in 275.00 15 times in 275.00 15 times in 275.0

○ The name of the bus stops and stops by the operation system and the distance from electric poles (crocia hotel) to the bus stops: 32.0km from the Highway bus stops to the Highway bus stops: 175.0km and the name, location, and location of the place of business added to ○○ 68.0km from the Highway bus stops: 5.0km from the Highway bus stops: The name of the business office added to 00km from the Highway bus stops and the bus stops: the new bus stops, the area of 50m of the new bus stops in Yong-si, Yong-si, the area of one bus stops in large buses: 50m

(4) On December 30, 1997, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the modification of the business plan (the second modification) from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do on the grounds of removal of unreasonable factors in the existing operation section, provision of high-quality transportation services to the service provider for the service contract, as follows. (In this case, the location and size of 63 buildings indicated as the intermediate stop?). As to this, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do requested consultation on the modification of the business plan to the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on December 13, 1997, but the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not request consultation on the modification of the business plan to the Governor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City. In addition, the Plaintiff did not request the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City

1. Change of the 10-round intermediate stop area at 10-round 15-round 10-round 10-round 10-round 15-round 10-round 10-round 15-round 10-round 10-round 10-round 10-round 1

(5) After that, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for modification of the business plan from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do on two occasions. Meanwhile, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do had the procedure of consultation with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do prior to the authorization for modification of the business plan on July 30, 1998.

On July 30, 1998, the number of the end points of the ticket stop and the end points of the ticket stop located in the main sentence, and on July 30, 1998, the number of 40.2 km points extended 40.2 km for the end points of the road, the Highway, the Highway, the 63-building Kimpo Airport, the 15.0.0.0 15 times in the 63-building Kimpo Airport, the 15.0 2 times in the 2nd 2nd 18th 2nd 2nd 2955 in the GasanIC, the Gasan Highway, the Highway, the Highway, the 63 buildings, the Kimpo Airport, the International Airport of the 15th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2000, and the 40.2 km, the MasanIC, the Highway, the Mani,

(6) From January 1, 1998 to June 63, 198, the Plaintiff operated a section between the Jeonju Pian hotel and Kimpo Airport, or the Incheon International Airport, and used the same parking lot in the premises of 63 buildings as seen earlier. On April 6, 2001, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to suspend the use of the above convenience parking lot from May 7 of the same year, and the Plaintiff began to use the above letter platform as a stop place from May 8 of the same year.

(7) The freight system applicable to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s passenger transport business is a cross-city bus transport business, is, in principle, the freight system that differs from the transport charges depending on the nature and distance of the section. As of March 29, 2001, the fare system applied to the Plaintiff is 69.19 won/km, which is the distance fare of the ebbbban International Airport from the ebbban city bus packing, and the ebbban-in International Airport from the eb.g., the ec., the ec., the ec.g. the ec. the ec. the ec., the ec., the ec., the ec., the ec., the ec., the ec., the ec., the ec.b. the ec., the ec. and the ec., the ec. ec., the ec. the ec. the e. the e.).

From January 1, 1998, while passing through 63 buildings as above, the Plaintiff transported the passengers who want to use only the section of 63 buildings from Gimna Airport to Mancheon International Airport. From around 06:00 to around 22:20, the operating hours are operated 24 times a day at intervals of 30 minutes a day in substitution, and the riman bus (at least 340 m340 m3, 28 seating capacity) is used, and another company (the company operating an airport bus passing through women’s intention is outside of the Plaintiff and the Intervenor is not outside of the Plaintiff, and this refers to the Intervenor) receives 11,000 won (at around April 23, 2003, raised to 12,000 won). The Plaintiff distributed the leaflet that the Plaintiff is entitled to 6,000 won.

(b) Details of the intervenor's limited license and business plan;

(1) The Intervenor is a company that mainly provides passenger transportation services (city passenger transportation services) with its principal office in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 92, Songpa-gu.

(2) On January 22, 2001, the intervenor obtained the following limited licence and business plan from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor.

The scope of the limited license duties for the type of passenger transport business in the Dong-gu section included in the main text shall be operated by 1. Lido to 2 routes of airport buses: Magdo to 2. Incheon International Airport 2. Magjin: from Magdo to 88, from February 1 to January 31, 2004 to January 31, 2004, the term of validity of the Incheon International Airport shall be from February 1 to 88, 2001 to 1.5 years from January 31, 2004 to the designated bus stops.

6 10 20 % 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 115.0 48, Incheon New Airport in 63 Building, 115.0

○ 63.Location of a 63 building stop

Right-hand: 50 Inndo-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government 2 Hado-dong

left-hand: front of the Jindo-dong 61 63 buildings in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

○ Place where a bus stops are installed

Right: Prior to the branch of Yongdo-dong 25 Korea Development Bank in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

left-hand: front of the Korea Stock Exchange in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

(3) The intervenor obtained on March 22, 2001 the following business plan modification authorization from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

The number of running hours at the end point of the ticket stop (oil station) located in the main sentence and the number of 150 minutes extended to 7 minutes at the end point of 150 minutes at the 20th 20th 20th 20th 13th 150 square meters at the UN Incheon New Airport, which is included in the main sentence.

(4) Six passenger transport companies, including intervenors, voluntarily form the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Airport Bus Transport Business Consultative Council and jointly set up a stop in the authorized location on the approved business plan when jointly preparing for the operation of airport buses (in a short run, it appears to be a stop permission or installation permission of the head of the Gu at the location of the stop, and an installation of an airport bus guidance sign). The Guro-gu head of the Gu shall install the stop at the place of approval by obtaining permission or installation permission of the stop from the head of Guro-gu and the head of Mapo-gu. At the time, the head of Guro-gu head of the Gu must accurately install commercial advertisements at the place of approval, not attach commercial advertisements, and the color of the bus transport companies shall avoid the color likely to cause confusion with road guidance signs.

(c) Open port of provision of the Incheon State and land transportation measures for the defendant;

(1) On March 29, 2001, the defendant delivered to each Mayor/Do Governor a plan for implementing land transport measures on the access to Incheon International Airport around April 2000 to facilitate smooth passenger transport between the Incheon International Airport-Seoul and the Incheon International Airport through each local city in response to an open port of the Incheon International Airport. The contents of the plan are as follows: (a) the transportation means by means of extending the route of urban buses (Seoul), or new license for passenger transport business (airport buses in cases other than Seoul) by each Mayor/Do Governor on the route of the Incheon International Airport; and (b) the types of transportation business, such as limited licenses, should be decided by each Mayor/Do Governor in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations on passenger transport. Accordingly, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do submitted to the defendant a plan for operating the Incheon International Airport Airport bus (Plan) on April 28, 200 to the defendant; and (c) one of the contents of the plan was to be operated by the Jeju International Airport through the 17th International Airport and the 17th International Airport via Jeon-U.

(2) On May 17, 200, the Defendant held the working committee for the Incheon International Airport Land Traffic Measures for the selection, etc. of the Incheon International Airport Access bus routes. According to the bus route (draft) determined at this time, 35 routes nationwide, which are the closing point of the Incheon International Airport, were determined to be 13 routes in Seoul, and 9 routes in Seoul, and 13 routes in Seoul, and 9 routes in Seoul. Of which, the Seoul Myeon was to be established, the direct seat bus route operating the Seoul Do through Incheon International Airport section was to be newly established. The front Myeon was determined to extend the closing point of the direct transit bus route (the Plaintiff’s route) that operates the Seoul Donsan-Yan International Airport section (the Plaintiff’s route) to the Incheon National Bureau. On August 12, 2000, the Defendant had limited the position of the Donsan-do National Passenger Transport Service Act to the 17th metropolitan bus transport business operator at the time of the extension of the passenger transport service license.

(3) The Defendant deemed that the matters consulted by the above working committee had gone through consultation and mediation procedures as stipulated in Article 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, and notified the relevant Mayor/Do Governor of the omission of the consultation procedures. The result of the countermeasures meeting as seen earlier, the Plaintiff obtained the approval for the change of the business plan on July 18, 200, and the Intervenor obtained the limited license for the city bus (airport bus) on January 22, 2001, operated the routes of each Incheon International Airport as the closing point.

(4) On March 19, 2001, before the opening of the Incheon International Airport, the Defendant held a 'Land Transport Measures Meeting', such as Incheon International Airport Buses, in order to finally check the progress of implementation of bus transport measures which has been promoted during that period, and requested each Mayor/Do Governor to submit the current route status (business name, major border maintenance, etc.) of airport bus routes approved by each City/Do.

At the time, the route of the airport bus was 35 routes in Seoul and the Seoul metropolitan area and 8 routes in each region (electric poles, ices, nuclear poles, Cheongju, Daejeon, Cheongju, Cheongdo, Ondo, Mana), but the route via leisure among the 35 routes in Seoul and the Seoul metropolitan area was due, and the route via leisure among the 35 routes was due, and the route via leisure among the 35 routes was due.

Furthermore, among the local routes, the routes of passenger transport companies other than the plaintiff, starting from the local city and entering the highway (cence, the outer cycle of Seoul, the Western Highway, etc.) after entering the local city, are to immediately pass through the Kimpo Airport or to directly pass through the Incheon National Airport, while the routes of the plaintiff were allowed to pass 63 buildings through the 63 buildings, and the "f3 buildings" column of the "f3 buildings to the bus operation system guidance of the Incheon International Airport bus Route" prepared by the defendant as the reference material for the above countermeasures was stated as the bus stops by the plaintiff.

D. The progress of the dispute between the plaintiff and the intervenor and the circumstances leading to the adjudication in this case

(1) As seen earlier, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do requested the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on April 26, 2001 and May 9 of the same year to hold consultations on the relocation of a stop to be used by the Plaintiff on two occasions. The head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on May 25 of the same year, which made it difficult for the Mayor/Do governor having jurisdiction over the location to install a stop (transfer) of an airport bus due to concerns over excessive competition. Although the laws and regulations provide that the Mayor/Do governor having jurisdiction over the location shall be the competent government office, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do refused the request for consultations with the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do without consultation with the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City at the time of approving the parking lot of the 63 building building building in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the request for correction in the future."

Accordingly, on July 23, 2001, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do requested the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor to re-consultation on the transfer of 63 buildings stops to leisure stations, while promising that "the Governor will not transport passengers coming from and going from the Incheon International Airport Section, and will cancel the authorization of transportation charges of 63,000 won to the Incheon International Airport Section from 63 buildings already reported." However, on July 25, 2002, the Mayor of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City requested the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office to thoroughly control "the plaintiff's stop and stop act outside the stop" of the plaintiff on May 17, 2002 and ordered the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office to detect the violation of the plaintiff's bus and notify the plaintiff as the head of the competent government office of the issue of whether the plaintiff's passenger bus bus stops are located in Incheon Metropolitan City Section 6 of the passenger bus network installation of the passenger bus at the port of Incheon on July 2, 2002.

(2) On the other hand, on August 1, 2002, the intervenor in competition with the Plaintiff, who used the Plaintiff’s letter platform usage and the distribution of the advertising complex, requested the Plaintiff to suspend the Plaintiff’s act of getting off or getting off passengers without obtaining lawful permission for the installation of a stopping place. The plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Board of Audit and Inspection. On September 19, 200 of the same year, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, upon which the complaint was transferred, notified the Intervenor that “the Plaintiff’s stopping before the 63 building was judged to be in conflict with the laws and regulations, and the transit place out of the existing authorized matters is planned to be changed from the parking lot in the 63 building building building to the bus stop.”

(3) On September 18, 2002, the Defendant respondeded to the Governor of Jeollabuk-do that it is desirable for the Governor of Jeollabuk-do to grant limited licenses for passenger transport business limited to operate the limited license within the scope consistent with the purport of the business plan modification authorization, etc. and to handle the problem of the relocation of the stopping in consultation

(4) However, on October 2, 2002, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s airport bus was unable to enter the premises of 63 buildings, the Plaintiff reported a change in the business plan to change the location of the bus stops from the Dong-based parking lot to the library platform. The Governor of Jeollabuk-do made the instant repair disposition on the same day, and the Intervenor filed an administrative appeal against the instant repair disposition, thereby making the instant decision.

E. Progress after the instant repair disposition was rendered

(1) On November 28, 2002, the defendant sent a public notice to the purport that "if a route is located in the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities, or if a starting point or terminal point is changed in the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities, or a stop is newly established or altered in the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities due to changes in the bus transport business plan and the change in the business plan, it shall undergo consultation with the relevant Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities (see Article 5 (1) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act) by simply passing through the related Dos at the time of the change in the plan for cross-city bus transport business and the business plan (see Article 5 (1) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act)."

(2) On December 17, 2002, the National Ombudsman recommended the Governor of Jeollabuk-do to cancel the repair disposition of this case and issue an improvement order to return the place of stop to its original Dong parking lot. Accordingly, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do requested the Committee to review the case, but the said Committee dismissed the application for review. On January 24, 2003, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do requested the 63 ccti to allow the Plaintiff to use the 63 ccti parking lot of the 63 ccti building as a stop, but the 63 ccti refused it.

(3) Meanwhile, on April 4, 2003, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Defendant on the ground that “The Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not pre-consult with the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, the competent authority of the Plaintiff’s route at the time when granting the Plaintiff’s limited license for airport buses and the business plan to the Intervenor on January 22, 2001, and thus, the Plaintiff’s approval for the Intervenor’s business plan was unlawful.” However, the Defendant dismissed the appeal on June 23,

[Evidence] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 4-1, 5-6, Eul evidence 5-1 through 5, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Gap evidence 9, 10, 13-1 through 9, Eul evidence 10-1, 11-2, Eul evidence 11 through 19, Eul evidence 20-1, 21-21-2, Eul evidence 23 through 28, Eul evidence 30-33 through 39, Eul evidence 40-1, 5-4, 5-4, 5-1 through 4, 5-4, 5-1, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 5-1 through 4, 5-4, 5-4, 5-1, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 5-1, 4.

5. Determination

A. As to the eligibility for administrative appeal on the instant repair disposition

An administrative appeal is a disposition or omission by an administrative agency. In this case, the term "disposition" refers to the exercise or refusal of public authority as an enforcement of law with regard to a specific fact by an administrative agency, and other corresponding administrative actions (Articles 2(1)1 and 3 of the Administrative Appeals Act). Thus, when an administrative agency has a duty to exercise public authority with regard to a specific fact but the administrative agency has infringed upon the rights or interests of the people by refusing to exercise public authority with regard to a specific fact, an administrative appeal may be filed against such disposition. Such a legal principle likewise applies to cases where an administrative agency has a duty to refuse to exercise public authority, even if having actively exercised public authority.

Article 11 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 655, Feb. 4, 2002; Act No. 6655, Jan. 1, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that, in principle, a transport business entity shall obtain authorization from the competent administrative agency for the modification of its business plan, but it shall be replaced by reporting minor matters to the competent administrative agency for the modification of its business plan. Article 32 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance No. 316, May 24, 2002; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule") lists minor matters to be reported to the competent administrative agency for the modification of its business plan, and Article 31 of the Enforcement Rule provides for the criteria and procedure for the modification of its business plan, and Article 11 (3) and 31 (4) of the Act provides that an administrative agency's rejection of the modification of its business plan is merely an administrative agency's convenience of acceptance or modification of its business plan.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the repair disposition of this case is merely an act of fact and cannot be subject to administrative appeal is without merit.

B. As to the intervenor's standing to file an administrative appeal

Even if a third party, who is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, is eligible to file an administrative appeal and obtain a decision on the propriety of the administrative disposition, and the benefit legally protected in this context refers to the direct and specific benefit protected by the law based on the relevant administrative disposition. Generally, in a case where the law, which is the basis of the beneficial administrative disposition such as a license, authorization, permission, etc., aims at preventing unreasonable management due to excessive competition among the pertinent business operators, the existing business operator who is engaged in a business after receiving the same type of beneficial administrative disposition such as a license, authorization, permission, etc., for another business operator, is eligible to seek the revocation of the relevant administrative disposition through an administrative appeal, even though it is not the counter-party to the relevant administrative disposition such as a license, authorization, permission, etc., granted to the relevant business operator (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du4450, Oct. 25, 2002).

In this case, the purpose of Article 6 (1) 1 of the Act is to establish the order of passenger transport business and promote the comprehensive development of passenger transport business, thereby promoting public welfare and preventing unreasonable management arising from competition between transport business operators at the same time. Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 3 (1) 1 of the Act, Article 3 (3) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Business Act, Article 7 (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Business Act and the cross-city bus transport business (the intervenor's airport bus transport business) and the cross-city bus transport business (the plaintiff's airport bus transport business) are the same in that the operation system is set and the passenger transport business belongs to the route passenger transport business.

In addition, according to the above facts, both the plaintiff and the intervenor's limited license for airport bus operation between each City/Do and Incheon International Airport for the purpose of smooth transportation by domestic and foreign tourists using Incheon International Airport, and all the plaintiff and the intervenor are using 28 high-class free buses, and transporting passengers using the 63-in Incheon International Airport section from 63 buildings to 5-in Incheon International Airport (the overlapping of the route occurs). In light of the difference in operating hours depending on whether the plaintiff and the intervenor transit the Kimpo Airport, but the difference in operating fees, the frequency of dispatch and the frequency of operation, etc., if the plaintiff get passengers to board and alight using the 63-ins platform, it is anticipated that the decrease in the profits of the intervenor who used the 63-ins platform alone, and as a result, the repair disposition of this case is expected to bring profits to the intervenor and the plaintiff to seek revocation of the light business operation relationship, barring special circumstances.

The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff overlaps with the plaintiff's 63 buildings at the time of obtaining a limited license for airport buses from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City should have had prior consultation with the Do Governor having jurisdiction over the plaintiff's route, the approval of the business plan for the intervenor is illegal.

However, according to Article 70 (1) of the Act and Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, where the Minister of Construction and Transportation delegates his/her authority on the modification of a business plan to the Mayor/Do Governor, the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the passenger transport business shall consult in advance with the relevant Mayor/Do Governor when he/she intends to grant authorization on the establishment or modification of a route or on the modification of a business plan related to a route where the route extends over two or more Cities/Dos. According to Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree, the term "lane" means the section where the vehicle is to be operated on a regular basis. According to Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree, the urban bus transport business shall be in charge of the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the location of the principal office of the passenger transport business. In light of the legislative intent of the above passenger transport business license standards, the obligation of the Mayor/Do Governor to consult with the Mayor/Do Governor over the above 20th city/Do Governor over the passenger transport business plan extending over the 10th city/Do Governor.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

C. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the merits

(1) Whether a change in the location of the stopping is reported

(A) According to Article 11(1) of the Act, when a person who has obtained a license for passenger transport business intends to change his/her business plan, he/she shall obtain authorization from the competent Mayor/Do Governor. However, when he/she intends to change minor matters as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, the Minister of Construction and Transportation may entrust part of his/her authority under the Passenger Transport Service Act to a passenger transport business association. According to Article 32 of the Enforcement Rule, the use of a bus stop due to the change of the route or operating system of urban bus transport business and rural bus transport business shall be limited to minor matters to be reported to the competent Mayor/Do Governor, and it shall not be provided as minor matters to report the change of the location of a bus stop outside his/her jurisdiction.

According to the above laws and regulations, although the modification of a business plan by a passenger transport business operator is in principle authorized by the competent Mayor/Do Governor, if it is required to obtain authorization from the competent Mayor/Do Governor, it may not facilitate the operation of passenger transport business. Therefore, it seems that the modification of a business plan takes effect by requiring the competent Mayor/Do Governor to report minor matters in lieu of authorization in order to promote the administrative convenience of the transport business operator and ease the administrative burden of the administrative agency. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that minor matters provided for in Article 32 of the Enforcement Rule are limited.

Therefore, unless a change in the location of a bus stop outside the jurisdiction of a bus transportation business entity is defined as a minor matter, it shall be viewed as a matter subject to authorization from the competent Mayor/Do Governor pursuant to the main sentence of Article 11 (1) of the Act.

(B) On this point, the plaintiff asserts that the repair disposition of this case does not change the "63 building" itself, which has already been authorized by the business plan, but only changes the location of a specific platform within the scope of the identity of the stop, so it cannot be viewed as the "change of the location of a stop under the Passenger Transport Service Ordinance".

According to Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act, the term "air route" means a section where a passenger intends to regularly operate a motor vehicle; the term "traffic system" means the overall term of the starting point, route, and frequency of operation from the starting point to the ending point, and the number of motor vehicles; the term "regular stop" means a place among the routes where a passenger can get into or get out of the route (On the other hand, although no definition is provided under the Passenger Transport Service Act, it is problematic in this case, according to Article 7 (5) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Passenger Transport Service Act, since the high speed type of bus transportation business among urban bus transportation business means a stop or stop between the starting point and the stopping point and the stopping point in each of the administrative districts of the Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Si/Gun where the Minister of Construction and Transportation deems it necessary for the convenience of the users of national expressways, and in light of the purpose of Article 2 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Enforcement Rule, the term "stop or stop point" means the intermediate point and the stopping point.

In addition, according to Article 5(1) of the Act and Article 10(1)4 of the Enforcement Rule, a person who intends to obtain a license for route passenger transport business shall attach a business plan and route map to an application for a passenger transport business license. According to Article 11(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule, a route route shall include the name and location of a stop, and according to Article 10(3)1(d) of the Enforcement Rule, a business plan shall include the operation system, the distance between stations by operation system, the distance between stations by operation system, and the operation hours by operation system, and according to Article 12(1) [Attachment Table 1-2] of the Enforcement Rule, the facility standards of a bus stops among the minimum subsidiary facilities for passenger transport business that a passenger transport business operator should be equipped shall be installed at a place convenient for passengers' use, and according to Article 4(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule, a stop indicated in a passenger transport business plan shall be in charge of the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over its location.

On the other hand, the business plan and route map attached at the time when the plaintiff obtained a limited license for airport buses and its business plan from the Governor of Jeollabuk-do, or when the plan of the first business plan was revised on August 2, 1997 due to the "change in light of the maintenance of light," etc. were specifically specified as the number and size of the bus stops to be used by the plaintiff, the distance between stations, etc., and the situation that the bus stops were specifically specified as the location of the bus stops when the plaintiff obtained a limited license for airport buses and its business plan from the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City or when the business plan was approved later, the Seoul Airport Transport Business Council organized by the Seoul Metropolitan City Airport Transport Business Operator, including the intervenors, with the permission or authorization from the head of Mapo-gu Office, etc.

In light of the above provisions and facts of the law, it is reasonable to view that a motor vehicle used for passenger transport business is an area in which passengers board and alight passengers, and it does not mean a certain stopping space, sign, and physical facilities equipped with ticketing facilities, as alleged by the plaintiff, and that it does not include a certain area as argued by the plaintiff, nor does it be separated into a specific platform in a stopping place and its stopping place (where a passenger transport business operator submits a business plan to the competent Mayor/Do Governor, it should specify the location of a stopping place in detail, and if the location of a stopping place is not specified, it is reasonable to view that the competent Mayor/Do Governor should not authorize the modification of the business plan and its business plan because the lack of attached documents, such as the business plan and route, is not specified, and therefore, it is unlawful in this regard).

(C) Therefore, the repair disposition of this case is erroneous in determining that it is a minor matter to be reported even though the location of the location of the place is modified, and there is a defect in its acceptance.

(2) As to the duty to implement the consultation procedure by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do

(A) Details of the relevant laws and regulations

According to Article 70 (1) of the Act, when the modification of a business plan of passenger transport business covers two or more Cities/Dos, the related Mayors/Do Governors shall consult with the Minister of Construction and Transportation under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, and when the consultation does not take place, the Mayors/Do Governors having jurisdiction over the urban bus transport business shall, under Article 5 (1) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Rule, consult with the competent Mayors/Do Governors in advance when the modification of a business plan extending over two or more Cities/Dos: Provided, That under Article 5 (1) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Rule, where the route extending over two or more Cities/Dos, the Mayor/Do Governors having jurisdiction over the urban transport business shall consult with the competent Mayors/Do Governors in advance when the modification of the business plan is concerned with the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities (excluding the case where the starting point or ending point is located in the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities by newly establishing or extending the route or the case where the starting point or ending point is changed within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities concerned.

(B) The meaning and interpretation of the consultation procedures and exceptions thereto

The purpose of this Act is to provide for a higher-level administrative agency to delegate part of its authority to a lower-level administrative agency, and at the same time, to consult on matters related to two or more lower-level administrative agencies, and to provide for a procedure to coordinate disagreements among opinions if a higher-level administrative agency fails to reach agreement, the procedure of consultation is to prevent the disturbance of administrative order due to the conflict of interests between lower-level administrative agencies or the difference in interpretation of the scope of authority and the dispute between interested parties resulting therefrom, and to prevent any infringement of the interests of the existing administrative agency by allowing lower-level administrative agencies to make a more careful administrative decision through consultation with other administrative

In particular, since the purpose of the Passenger Transport Service Act is to promote public welfare by establishing order in passenger transport service and promoting the smooth transport of passengers and the comprehensive development of passenger transport service (Article 1 of the Act), one of the licensing standards for passenger transport business is to meet the transport demand and transport capacity supply in a route or business area concerned (Article 6(1)); detailed licensing standards for transport demand and transport supply of each City/Do may be separately determined by the competent Mayor/Do Governor (Article 12(3) of the Enforcement Rule); and in cases of intercity bus transport business, it is anticipated that the new bus transport business will be operated outside the ordinary jurisdiction of the competent Mayor/Do Governor; in principle, it is likely that the new bus transport business operator will be operated within the jurisdiction of the competent Mayor/Do Governor because the new bus transport business is likely to be operated by the competent Mayor/Do Governor because of the overlapping of route and route with other transport business operators licensed by the competent Mayor/Do Governor (Article 3(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act); while the Mayor/Do Governor having jurisdiction over the competent authority over the location of the new bus transport business (Article 4).

However, in all cases where the routes of cross-city bus transportation business extend over two or more Cities/Dos, unnecessary administrative waste occurs in the course of consultation, and there may be rejection or delay of consultation arising from localism. In particular, in the situation where most urban bus transportation business entities with the principal office in the Do obtain a license or modify a business plan with a business plan to operate routes extending over the Seoul Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan Cities, it would seriously undermine administrative efficiency to require the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu or a Metropolitan City Mayor to comply with the consultation of the competent Mayor/Do Governor in all cases, and thus, it would be deemed that it accords with the legislative purport of the Passenger Transport Service Act to prevent the need for enforcement of consultation and mediation procedures only in only minor cases where it is not necessary to do so in order to prevent such a serious decrease in administrative efficiency, and if the enforcement rules of the Passenger Transport Service Act, which have such exception provisions, recognize broad exceptions not scheduled by the law, it would be unreasonable to the legislative intent of the law, which would be invalid as it goes beyond the limit of delegated legislation.

Therefore, considering that the above legislation of passenger transport service and the characteristics of the cross-city bus transport service, the need to maintain a balance between the transport demand and transport capacity of the Special Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City without consultation or mediation procedures with the Special Metropolitan City Mayor/Metropolitan City Mayor, and the need to maintain a balance between the transport demand of the Special Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City and the transport capacity of the Metropolitan City, it is higher than the profits of the cross-country bus transport service obtained by operating the route without the consultation or mediation procedure with the Special Metropolitan City Mayor/Metropolitan City/Metropolitan City, the amendment of the business plan related to the route extending over the Special Metropolitan City or Metropolitan City under Article 5 (1) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Rule shall be interpreted as limited to the exclusion of

In addition, as seen in the above facts, the Plaintiff’s limited license is limited to the foreign travel enterprise’s (lag) passenger transport, and the Defendant, in response to the open port of Incheon International Airport Traffic Measures, reviewed the transportation demand, etc. of the Incheon International Airport Traffic Measures Working Committee through the deliberation of the Incheon International Airport Traffic Measures Working Committee, required the Mayor/Do Governor to approve the route of the Incheon National Airport 35 and the Seoul and the Seoul metropolitan area, and 8 local airport buses from each City/Do to each Do, and the Plaintiff’s route was extended from the original Kimpo Airport to the Incheon International Airport in accordance with the Defendant’s plan. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s route was extended to the original Kimpo Airport port of Kimpo, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do to the Plaintiff’s office changed the business plan to enable the Plaintiff to transport passengers other than the airport user, not only goes beyond the above limited license’s duty scope, but also it violates the Defendant’s public interest efforts to promote the function of the Incheon International Airport, and to promote the convenience of the Incheon International Airport users.

Therefore, inasmuch as the change of the Plaintiff’s business plan subject to the instant repair disposition includes a change of the location of the stopping place within the jurisdiction of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Governor of Jeollabuk-do did not consult with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor before determining whether to accept the instant report, and thus, the instant repair disposition is unlawful.

(C) During the deliberation process of the “Working Committee on Land Traffic Measures for Incheon International Airport Access,” which was held by the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s obligation to consult with the Governor of Jeollabuk-do should be considered to have been fulfilled. However, as seen in the above recognition process, it was only deliberated upon the extension of the existing route points of the “Seoul-Yasan-Yasan Airport,” as submitted by the Governor of Jeollabuk-do in the process of deliberation at the above Working Committee, and the Plaintiff’s bus was not deliberated on the business plan stopping or transiting at the “63 building” stop, and therefore, the said assertion has no merit.

6. Conclusion

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

Judges Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Judge)