2014Nu5964 Revocation of revocation of the designation of Chinese organization tourers exclusively in charge of attracting tourists.

A

The Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap4337 decided July 18, 2014

April 29, 2015

May 20, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The revocation of the designation of the exclusive travel agent for attracting Chinese group tourists on February 11, 2014, which the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on February 11,

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is that the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to that of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following, and thus, it is acceptable to accept this as is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Supplementary determination is that “Plaintiffs only lent the name of their exclusive travel company to general travel companies” under Article 11(3)2, which provides for the grounds for revocation of the designation of exclusive travel companies in this case. Thus, it does not constitute a case where Plaintiff subcontracts not only “inducing Chinese organizations tourists,” but also “inducing domestic tourism” under Article 11(3)2, such as the Plaintiff’s case, and if it is interpreted differently, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s exclusive travel business entity’s use of the name of its exclusive travel company and its exclusive travel business entity’s use of the name of its exclusive travel company and its exclusive travel business entity’s use of the name of its exclusive travel business entity under Article 11(3)2, without considering the following circumstances: The Plaintiff’s exclusive travel business entity’s use of the name of its exclusive travel business entity and its exclusive travel business entity’s use of the name of its exclusive travel business entity and the exclusive travel business entity’s use of the name of its exclusive travel business entity’s use of the name and its exclusive travel business entity’s use of guidelines.

2. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed on the ground that it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable with this conclusion. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit

The presiding judge, the whole judge;

Judges Dok-woo

Judges Yoon Jong-dae