2016Guhap23112 Revocation of license for marine passenger transportation services

A Stock Company

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office

B A.

November 1, 2017

November 29, 2017

1. On September 6, 2016, the Defendant’s license for maritime passenger transport services on the port-C sea route against the Intervenor joining the Defendant is revoked.

2. The supplementary part of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status and preceding judgment of the parties

1) Pursuant to Article 53(1) of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 27(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Marine Transportation Act, the Defendant is an administrative agency responsible for granting a license for maritime passenger transport services for the navigationC sea route.

2) On September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a conditional license for marine passenger transport services on the sea route ?C (D) from the Defendant on condition that the facilities under Article 5(1)2 and 5(1)2 of the Marine Transportation Act were installed. At the time, F Co., Ltd. received a license for marine passenger transport services for the said sea route from G around April 2013 and operated H. On May 10, 2013, F Co., Ltd. operated J with the aforementioned sea route upon obtaining a license for marine passenger transport services.

3) On November 29, 2013, Co. 1 filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the revocation of the above conditional license against the Plaintiff (Tgu District Court 2013Guhap3186), and K (hereinafter “K”) took over the above license from the Defendant Company I and participated in the lawsuit on February 14, 2014, and Co. 1 retired from the lawsuit.

4) The court of first instance dismissed the claim of K on November 14, 2014. However, the court of first instance revoked the judgment of the first instance on September 3, 2015, and revoked the above conditional license granted by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on September 3, 2013 (Seoul High Court 20146921), and the appeal against it was dismissed on April 12, 2016 and became final and conclusive on April 14, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “prior judgment of this case”).

B. The defendant's invitation and announcement of the result

1) Upon revocation of the Plaintiff’s conditional license on the instant preceding judgment, K filed an application for authorization to alter the coastal passenger transport service plan with two vessels on April 18, 2016 to the Defendant on the instant sea route. On April 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a new license with respect to the instant sea route. However, on April 26, 2016, the Defendant rejected the said application on the ground that “A plan to attract excellent business operators and provide sound competition to ensure the transportation safety of users, including C residents and tourists, and to improve passenger service,” and subsequently, on May 9, 2016, returned the application to the Plaintiff on the ground that “A plan to attract excellent business operators and promote sound competition” was implemented to ensure the transportation stability of the users of the sea route and to improve the sound competition of the users of the passenger service.

2) On June 3, 2016, the Defendant publicly announced the selection of a coastal passenger transport service provider for the instant sea route in accordance with the public notice on inland sea transportation prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transport Act (Notice No. 2015-220 of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries) (hereinafter “public notice on inland sea”) pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Marine Transportation Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, and the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act (hereinafter “public notice on the selection of the instant service provider”). The main contents of the public notice and attached notice are as follows.

1. Project outlines of the project. The project outlines of the project 1. The project outlines of the project: Port/C * : Port/C : Facilities subject to security of about 117 miles: Passenger ships, landings facilities and convenience facilities (terminals, terminals, landing facilities, etc.). 2. A person who intends to operate passenger transportation business or passenger transportation business under the Marine Transportation Act and who does not have any grounds for disqualification under Article 8 of the Marine Transportation Act shall prepare the project proposal criteria and guide document; 4. The method of selecting the project operator shall be prepared in accordance with the project proposal criteria and guide document;

A person shall be appointed.

3) On July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor submitted a project proposal to the Defendant in accordance with the instant public announcement of the selection of the business entity, and attended a project explanation meeting for each of the above project proposals and explained each of the examiners of the project proposal.

4) Upon examining each of the above project proposals on July 1, 2016, the Defendant publicly announced that the Defendant selected the Intervenor joining the Defendant as the business entity as follows.

Name of sea route: Port of port - Business operator selected for C-lane: Matters to be considered as B-O

(a) The selected passenger service provider shall submit an application for a license for regular coastal passenger transportation services within 30 days from the date of the public notice, and if the application is not made within the time limit, the selection of the service provider shall be cancelled; and if the contents of the application are different from those of the proposal, the license may be denied;

5) According to each review and assessment report on the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “the result of the review and assessment of this case”), the Intervenor’s Intervenor received 631 points among the total point 700 points, and obtained 630.1 points at an average of 90.1 points among the total point 700 points, and the Plaintiff received 574 points at an average of 82 points among the total point 700 points and received 82 points at an average of 82 points. The Defendant received a license for maritime passenger transport services for the instant sea route from the Intervenor on July 28, 2016, and on August 10, 2016, the Defendant applied for a license for maritime passenger transport services for the instant sea route from the Defendant’s Intervenor on July 2

2) On September 6, 2016, the Defendant issued a conditional license to the Defendant’s Intervenor with a license for marine passenger transport services for the instant sea route pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 2(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”). Of the above, the main contents are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

3) The Intervenor joining the Defendant commenced the operation of M on September 8, 2016.

D. The defendant's additional business operator selection announcement and related cases

1) On October 19, 2016, the Defendant, once again, publicly announced the selection of regular coastal passenger transport service providers for the instant sea route as follows.

1. Business outline 0: Posting port/C-place of departure/place of arrival/place of departure/place of arrival: Posc. Posc. 18ma* 118ma* 118-day for securing and convenience of traffic rights (one-day living zone) of the C islanders, and C shall be departure at least for a given period of not less than 4 months (4 months) during a year. Facilities subject to C security: Passenger ships, passenger ships, landing facilities and convenience facilities (terminals, landing facilities, etc.) 2. 2. Preparation of qualifications for application and proposal, and any person who intends to carry out passenger transport business or passenger transport business under the Marine Transport Act and who has no grounds for disqualification under Article 8 of the Marine Transport Act, shall prepare a proposal according to the criteria for evaluation

2) On January 6, 2017, the Plaintiff was selected as a business operator by participating in the public notice of the said business operator, and after obtaining a conditional license on January 20, 2017, the Plaintiff was issued a license for maritime passenger transport business by using navigation routes as “ports - C (N)/C (D) - Port.”

3) On April 13, 2017, the Intervenor’s Intervenor filed a lawsuit revoking the above license and is currently pending in the lawsuit ( Daegu District Court 2017Guhap210901).

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1 through 8 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defense and judgment of this case

A. Main safety defense of the Intervenor joining the Defendant

According to the public announcement on the selection of a business entity of this case, when the disposition of this case is revoked, a subordinate company with at least 80 points in the evaluation of the project proposal without re-public offering is selected as a business entity. The plaintiff received an average of at least 82 points in the examination and evaluation of this case. On the ground that the plaintiff appointed 0 as a safety control agency pursuant to Article 21-5(2) of the Maritime Transportation Act in the part of the 'business performance capacity' among the evaluation items, 63 points out of 70 points out of the total 70 points out of the total 70 points out of the total 7 points out of the total 7 points out of the total 7 points out of the total 7 points out of the total 7 points out of the total 7 points, on the ground that there is a water room and a toilet for disabled persons installed within the passenger ship. However, this case is not eligible as a safety control agency under Article 33 of the Maritime Safety Act, and it does not constitute a convenient mobility equipment, and thus, it does not conform to the average point of the plaintiff 2757.

1) Relevant legal principles

Where several persons who have applied for the beneficial administrative disposition, such as authorization and permission, are bound to result in the disposition of permission, etc. against one party due to non-permission, etc. from the other party in competition, a person who was not subject to the disposition of permission, etc., is eligible to seek the revocation of the relevant disposition, even though the other party to the disposition was not the other party to the disposition of permission, etc. taken against the ordinary party: Provided, That where the possibility of accepting the Plaintiff’s application is excluded from the beginning due to an obvious legal impairment, there is no legitimate interest to seek the revocation of the relevant disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du8359, Dec. 10, 2009; 2013Du14

2) In the instant case:

In light of the above legal principles and the above-mentioned facts, the plaintiff and the defendant joining the defendant's joining the defendant's participation in the competition process of this case, the plaintiff's average 82 points as a result of the evaluation of this case, and there is a possibility that the plaintiff will be selected as a business operator without re-public offering if the disposition of this case is revoked, and the plaintiff's application of this case is not likely to be cited from the beginning. The plaintiff's selection of the plaintiff's joining the defendant's joining the plaintiff's participation in the marine transportation business at the time of exercising discretionary power pursuant to Article 8 of the Marine Transportation Act, and there is no possibility that the plaintiff's selection of the plaintiff's joining the plaintiff's joining the plaintiff's joining the plaintiff's participation in the marine transportation business at the time of exercising discretionary power pursuant to Article 5 of the Marine Transportation Act, and there is no possibility that the plaintiff's selection of the plaintiff's joining the plaintiff's participation in the marine transportation business at the time of the plaintiff's revocation of the disposition of this case.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s selection as a business operator according to the public announcement of the business selection of the instant business operator, and the instant disposition issued a license is illegal to deviate from and abuse of discretionary authority. A) The Defendant publicly announced the instant business operator’s selection in order to prevent harm caused by the monopoly operation of the sea route, promote the convenience of air route users, and guarantee the opportunity for third party to participate in the business. The Intervenor’s Intervenor cannot be designated as a business operator according to the public announcement of the business selection of the instant business

B) As a result of the instant review on the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s examination, it is merely an entry of K’s operation and management personnel without securing human resources in the part of the Human Resources Investment Plan, and thus cannot receive points. If such circumstance is reflected, the assessment score on the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s participation cannot be selected as a business entity because it is less than 80 points. Moreover, the safety management plan and the vessel operation plan were unfairly high (B).

2) Defendant or Defendant Intervenor’s assertion

A) Under Articles 4 and 5 of the Marine Transportation Act, which stipulate general matters concerning licenses for marine passenger transport services, the enforcement rules of the Marine Transportation Act pursuant to delegation thereof, and public notice on inland sea transport, the provisions that restrict qualifications for participation of new operators, and Article 8 of the Marine Transportation Act does not stipulate that existing or existing operators are disqualified for business licenses.

B) In addition, although the Intervenor and K are in a parent-subsidiary relationship, they are separate corporations that independently act with independent articles of association, decision-making body, and executive organ. The Intervenor and K operate marine passenger transportation services in mutual independence. As such, the Intervenor and K cannot be viewed as the same business entity with the Intervenor and K. The Intervenor and K provide mutual support and cooperation in part of marine passenger transportation services through the work coordination (Evidence BB No. 16) concluded between them, and K are not operating in bad faith with the Defendant’s activities.

B. Relevant statutes

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

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of each of the above evidence, Gap evidence of 7 to 20, Eul evidence of 1 to 20, Eul evidence of 1 to 20, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) The relation between K and the Intervenor joining the Defendant

A) K was established on February 11, 2014, and is engaged in maritime passenger transportation business as a major business, and has its head office in the north-gu P of Port at Port.

B) The Intervenor joining the Defendant was established on April 9, 1986 and engaged in civil engineering, construction, electricity, packing, etc. as its main business, and Kimhae-si has its main office located in Qu.

C) The shareholder composition of K and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is as follows. R and S are as follows; K and the Intervenor joining the Defendant are specially related companies.

A person shall be appointed.

D) On July 2015, K used M to operate C-T routes. On June 10, 2016, the Defendant joining the Defendant entered into a bareboat charter (Bare) with respect to M in the amount of KRW 1,388,000,000 each year between K and 1,380,000.

E) On June 15, 2016, U, the representative director of K, joined the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s managing director as a managing director, and on July 1, 2016, U appeared at the time of explaining the project proposal in accordance with the instant public notice.

F) On September 1, 2016, the Intervenor’s Intervenor added vessel operation business, passenger scheduled navigation routes business, and Internet service business for business purposes, and registered on September 7, 2016.

G) The Intervenor joining the Defendant operates the Internet homepage (V), and only introduces civil engineering, construction, and landscaping projects in the area of the project sector, and does not introduce passenger transportation services, but provides all services related to passenger transportation services, including reservations and flight guidance, to M through the K’s website (W). The representative phone number of K and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is the same.

H) According to the list of the rights derived from September 8, 2016 to July 31, 2017, K and the Intervenor’s list of the marks and the Defendant’s respective marks, most of K and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s marks overlap. The Defendant’s employees issued or opposed the passenger ship’s boarding marks to the Defendant’s Intervenor.

2) Contents of B’s project proposal

A) According to the project proposal submitted by B at the time of the announcement of the selection of the instant business entity (hereinafter referred to as “instant project proposal”), the organization of B is as follows, and on June 1, 2016, the shipping business headquarters was newly established, and X and U as the chief of the shipping business headquarters on June 15, 2016.

A person shall be appointed.

B) The main contents of the “project performance capacity plan” portion of each evaluation item in the instant project proposal are as follows.

I, capacity to implement the project; 4. Capacity to secure and manage seafarers; 1) The current status of seafarer management objectives and policies 2) the seafarer has acquired all of the number of persons on board the ship.

(b) A plan for the placement of employees of the management team 3) a plan for the placement of employees of the management team 4) a plan for the placement of employees of the management team 1) a plan for the placement of employees of the management team 2);

C) The above "Plan for Human Resources input" (A. 2) 7 seafarers and 3 reserve seafarers, who are indicated in the status of seafarer security, were all M seafarers on board, and the remaining employees and 4) employees other than the head of the department among the employees of the business team, and the employees indicated in C offices were K prior to the preparation of the project proposal in this case, and are registered as a ticket manager on the K's list from September 8, 2016 to July 31, 2017.

D) The result of the instant review on B was as follows, and was assessed as an average of 90.1 points at the 631st point.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

D. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 4(1) and (4) of the Marine Transportation Act, a person who intends to operate a marine passenger transport service shall obtain a license from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries for each service route by type under Article 3, and the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries shall grant a license under paragraph (1) on condition that he/she shall be equipped with the facilities, etc. under Article 5(1)2 and 5, or may attach necessary conditions to ensure the safety and convenience of passengers, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. In addition, under Article 5(1) of the Marine Transportation Act, when a person intends to grant a license for a marine passenger transport service, the competent administrative agency shall examine whether the business plan submitted by the business operator conforms to the nature of the transport demand in the relevant service route and whether the vessel mooring facilities and other transport facilities used for the relevant service are suitable for the nature of the transport demand in the relevant service route, (2) whether the commencement of the relevant service is likely to compromise the safety of marine traffic, (4) whether a person establishes an operation plan suitable for convenience of passengers, such as the quantity of passenger ships, etc.

According to the above provisions, a license for marine passenger transport services is granted to a specific person the right or interest, and such license belongs to a discretionary act that must be determined by comprehensively taking into account the transport demand of the service route, suitability of mooring facilities, etc., safety of marine transportation, convenience of users, etc. However, even if an administrative agency’s discretionary act was conducted based on mistake of facts, etc., or violates the principle of proportionality or the principle of equality, etc., it is illegal as it deviates from or abused discretion, and thus, its revocation is not dismissed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du8589, Jul. 27, 200

2) Determination as to the assertion

In full view of the relevant legal principles and relevant statutes and the following circumstances revealed, the notice of the selection of the instant business entity is subject to a new business entity. Although the Defendant did not regard the Defendant’s Intervenor as a new business entity, the Defendant selected the Defendant’s Intervenor as a business entity and granted a license to the instant disposition, the instant disposition is unlawful as it deviates from and abused the discretionary authority.

A) Article 4(1) of the Marine Transportation Act provides that a person who intends to operate a Maritime Passenger Transportation Business shall obtain a license for each service route by type of business under Article 3: Provided, That in the case of coastal passenger transportation business under subparagraph 2 of Article 3, a license may be granted for two or more service routes; and in the case of non-regular overseas passenger transportation business, cruise passenger transportation business and combined marine passenger transportation business under subparagraphs 4 through 6 of Article 3, a license may be granted regardless of a service route. Accordingly, a license may not be granted in excess of one service route in the case of coastal passenger transportation business under Article 3(1) of the Marine Transportation Act. Under Article 4(2) and (3) of the Marine Transportation Act, the competent administrative agency may issue a new license through a public recruitment. Article 4 of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act provides that a new service route shall be amended to secure a new service route after the lapse of one year from the date of appointment of a new service route to secure a service route by an operator.

In light of the contents and purport of the above provision, it is interpreted that a business operator who already engages in regular coastal passenger transportation services for one sea route cannot obtain a license for the same sea route, and that in order to increase vessels for the existing sea route, the business plan should obtain a license for the same sea route, and that a business operator who already obtained a license for the existing sea route as a "new business operator" cannot obtain a re-license by participating in the open recruitment procedure for a new business operator. Such interpretation conforms to the legislative intent of the Marine Transportation Act (Article 1 of the Marine Transportation Act) that maintains fair competition and contributes to the improvement of user convenience and the promotion of public welfare.

B) It is apparent in light of the developments and contents of the instant public invitation to select new operators. Since the instant public invitation to select the instant public invitation to select the instant public invitation to select the instant public invitation to select the new operators, K and F & K were operating passenger ships with a license to engage in coastal transport business, and after the instant prior judgment, K applied for authorization to change the instant public invitation to provide two vessels on the instant public invitation, but the Defendant rejected the instant application on the ground that “C residents and tourists, etc., plan to implement public invitation to attract excellent business operators and promote sound competition in order to ensure the transportation safety and improve passenger services.” In addition, while the instant public announcement to select the instant public invitation to promote fair competition and examination, the Defendant clearly stated that the instant public announcement to select the new operator should be made in order to promote fair competition on the instant public announcement of the instant public invitation to select the new operator in accordance with the existing public announcement of the designation of the new operator in accordance with the instant public announcement of the instant public announcement of the selection of the new operator in accordance with the principle of fair competition.

C) In light of the legislative intent of the Marine Transportation Act to maintain fair competition and contribute to the promotion of users’ convenience and further public welfare, the same route is prohibited from double licenses by the previous operator, and the relevant provisions allowing only the new operator to license, and the developments leading up to the recruitment of the new operator, whether a new operator is a new business entity should not be determined by the form of legal entity. If a new business entity is determined to have lent only the name for the purpose of acquiring double licenses, or if it is deemed to have been able to exercise its influence on business due to an agreement closely related to a special-related company, it should be considered in interpreting each subparagraph of Article 5 of the Marine Transportation Act, and if it seems that fair competition cannot be achieved, it should not be assessed as a new business entity. Accordingly, if the Defendant did not consider or erred in exercising discretionary power on whether to issue licenses, it should be deemed to have abused or abused the scope of discretionary power against the principle of proportionality and the principle of equity in relation to other business entities.

D) However, according to the above facts and evidence, in the case of the Defendant’s Intervenor and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s major shareholder (100%’s equity ratio) were conducted by K’s major shareholder (100%), K and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s special relation company, ② after K’s rejection of the application for authorization for modification of the coastal passenger transport business plan, the Defendant’s selection of the Defendant was publicly announced. At the time, the Defendant’s Intervenor had no record of operating maritime transport business before participating in the above public announcement as a company mainly engaged in construction business, and there was no record of personal and material facilities related thereto. The Defendant did not include the vessel operation business in its corporate register (the vessel operation operation was added to the vessel operation business and passenger scheduled service). The Defendant’s preliminary passenger transport information service that was conducted on September 1, 2016, which was conducted by the Defendant’s representative director, was also conducted by 10 U.K.’s independent passenger transport information service, and 20 U.K.’s new passenger transport information service that was conducted.

In light of the above circumstances, the Intervenor newly participated in the public announcement of the selection of the Defendant, but in fact, K is deemed to have participated in the public announcement of the selection of the instant passenger transport service in the name of the Defendant with the same operating personnel in the same workplace, or at least it is not deemed to have a close relationship with the Defendant to substantially control the major contents of the instant marine passenger transport service operated by the Defendant or to cooperate to the extent of undermining fair competition. Nevertheless, in the process of the instant selection of the Defendant and the instant disposition, the Defendant selected and issued the Defendant’s business operator’s license without considering all the aforementioned circumstances in the process of the instant selection of the Defendant and the instant disposition, which is in itself against the principle of proportionality and equity with other business operators.

E) The Defendant joining the Defendant asserts that, during the charter period of M by concluding the Work Convention (Evidence B No. 16) and asserting that ① vessel management, ② the support and increase of crew members, ③ the right and reservation related to the business, ④ the entry into and departure from a ship, and other administrative affairs, are cooperating with the Defendant during the charter period of M. However, the above Work Convention was written on August 19, 2016, the transfer of the instant disposition. However, it is unclear whether the existence of the above document was unknown after the disposition of this case or after the Defendant was completely unaware of the existence of the above document, and it was delayed after the preparation order on June 5, 2017. The most contents of the Work Convention are related to the circumstances related to the same company in the instant trial process, such as the joint use and management of crew members, the right and reservation, etc. Even if the aforementioned work agreement was actually concluded between the two companies, it would have to be closely controlled by another company, and thus, it would have to be closely controlled by another company’s operation through mutual competition.

3) Judgment on the argument

In light of the following circumstances, even if the Defendant’s Intervenor’s new business operator is deemed to be the Defendant’s Intervenor’s new business operator, the result of the review of the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s review should be recognized to be less than 80 points. Nevertheless, the instant disposition that selected the Defendant’s first priority and issued the Defendant’s license is unlawful as going beyond

A) Upon examining the details of the results of the examination and evaluation of the case against the Intervenor, the Intervenor’s Intervenor stated that: (a) the part on securing the captain and crew of the “ human resources input plan” among the “business performance capabilities” was 61 points in total; and (b) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the crew and reserve crew members secured the portion on securing adequate land human resources, such as the ticketing staff; and (c) there is no evidence to support that the crew members were employed after they retired from K; and (d) the Intervenor also takes the form of dispatch service where the crew members are on board the vessel belonging to K or opposed to it; (e) relevant statutes, such as Article 5(3)3 and Article 6-2(1)2 of the Seafarers Act, prohibit dispatch of the crew members under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Seafarers Act; and (e) the captain and reserve crew members were not easily identified in the process of the examination and evaluation of the aforementioned preliminary passenger ship.

C) In addition, five employees of the business team and seven employees of the C office, which are described as securing adequate land human resources, such as ticketing employees, were affiliated with K prior to the preparation of the instant project proposal, and according to the K’s list of marks and the list of the rights derived from September 8, 2016 to July 31, 2017, the K’s list of marks and the list of rights derived from each page. The base point of time to determine whether administrative disposition is illegal in an appeal litigation is determined can be determined at the time of disposition or at the time of the conclusion of the arguments at the fact-finding court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du11843, Jan. 14, 2010). In light of the above circumstances, it is difficult to recognize this item as the adequate land human resources of the Intervenor at the time of the preparation of the instant project proposal. Thus, it is also difficult to recognize this item as the Defendant’s adequate land human resources at least 50%.

D) Comprehensively taking account of the foregoing, the average score for the Intervenor joining the Defendant appears to be 79 points (=54 (631 - 631 - 6116)/7). Furthermore, in light of the relationship with K, the status of human resources operation, and the current status of business operation as seen earlier, it is clear that the remainder of the above two items, with the exception of the above two items, should be given a lower score, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the number of the Intervenor joining the Defendant did not meet the requirements to be selected as the instant business entity, which is less than an average of 80 points.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Lee Jae-ran

Judge Park Sang-hoon

1) As the Defendant’s Intervenor rendered a judgment ordering the revocation of the instant disposition against the Defendant’s Intervenor in the instant case, this judgment is final and conclusive.

If determined, whether the Intervenor’s Intervenor is qualified as the Plaintiff in the pertinent case, and either Party A voluntarily returns its license.

As expected, the interest of the lawsuit is also a problem. Therefore, this related case is estimated to be the date until this judgment is finalized.

2) U seems to have been continuously holding the position of K’s representative director and the managing director of the Intervenor joining the Defendant in duplicate.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.