1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following judgments, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In violation of the principle of statutory reservation on the evaluation items for renewal, the Defendant applied the "evaluation items for renewal" with specific evaluation items and allocated points to the Plaintiff to determine whether to renew the designation of the exclusive travel agent for the Plaintiff. The assessment items for renewal have not been properly announced to the exclusive travel agent including the Plaintiff until the instant disposition was rendered, which is not provided for in the instant guidelines. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the renewal evaluation items that violates the principle of statutory reservation by restricting the Plaintiff’s freedom of occupation without any legal basis is unlawful. (ii) Even if the Defendant violated the obligation to publish the evaluation items for renewal in 2016, while conducting the renewal evaluation in 2013, the Defendant prepared an evaluation criteria that did not re-designated as the exclusive travel agent where the reduction points due to administrative sanctions are more than 6 points, and the specific evaluation items or the specific evaluation items are not publicly announced or publicly announced through legitimate procedures.

Therefore, it was impossible for the Plaintiff to know what criteria the renewal evaluation is conducted, and it was not possible to predict that the power of the administrative sanctions is the basis for the revocation of its independent designation. Therefore, the instant disposition was conducted in violation of Article 20(1) of the Administrative Procedures Act, which provides for an administrative agency to specifically publish the necessary disposition standards.

Article 3-2 of the Guidelines of this case, which is the basis for the disposition of this case in violation of the principle of non-payment of law, was first enacted and implemented on August 1, 2014. The defendant is the plaintiff around May 2014, which was prior to the enactment of the above ground provision.