2014Guhap64896 China's organization for attracting tourists, revocation of designation, etc.

Claim for Revocation

Limited Liability Company and Clean Tour Operator

The Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism

December 12, 2014

January 16, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On August 4, 2014, the Defendant revoked the revocation of the designation of the travel agency exclusively in charge of attracting Chinese group tourists.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China") designated the country of tourism in which China may travel for the control of its citizens at a foreign tourist destination, and only the travel agencies recommended by the government of that country designated the Republic of Korea as "China's country of free departure tourism" around May 1998. The Ministry of China's tourism-related ministries and the defendant, around June 1998 and on June 27, 2000, negotiations on "the plan to implement Korean tourism for Chinese tourist" and signed on a visa containing an agreement following the negotiations (hereinafter referred to as "non-record of this case").

C. According to the records of this case, 66 Chinese travel agents are required to take exclusive charge of Korean organization tourism business, and these travel agents are selected from among travel agencies recommended by the Government of the Republic of Korea and enter into a group tour service contract. The defendant, as set out in the records of this case, set up the "Guidelines for Promotion of Exclusive Tour Business" (No. 2013-0 of the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism Guidelines, No. 2013-0 of January 5, 2013, hereinafter referred to as the "Guidelines"), and accordingly, designated and managed the "exclusive tour agent exclusively in charge of attracting Chinese organization tourists" (hereinafter referred to as the "exclusive tour agent").

C. Meanwhile, on January 29, 2010, the Plaintiff was established for the purpose of ordinary travel business and travel agency business, and was designated as a exclusive travel agent from the Defendant on March 9, 2012. However, the Plaintiff, as a exclusive travel agent, subcontracted some Chinese-level tour to the New Myun International Syun (hereinafter referred to as the “Syunnam (Syunnam) events, which were not designated as a exclusive travel agent, while engaging in the domestic travel business of Chinese group tourists.

D. On April 11, 2014, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Commissioner of the Local Police Agency notified the Defendant that the Defendant “the Plaintiff, as the following, entrusted the management of Chinese collective tourists who had been attracting more than six times, against the instant guidelines by entrusting the Chinese collective tourists with the management thereof to the New Myun (YIG).”

A person shall be appointed.

E. On August 4, 2014, the Defendant rendered a disposition to revoke the designation of a dedicated tour tourer in China (hereinafter “instant disposition”) in accordance with Article 11(3)2 of the instant Guidelines on the ground that “the Plaintiff, the exclusive travel agent, lent his name to the general tour agent.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The instant guidelines only define the name of a non-designated general tour operator as the grounds for revocation of the designation, and do not prohibit some of the business affairs to be subcontracted. The Plaintiff, in substance, awarded a contract to a new Kynam-si, which is a subsidiary, made it possible for some Chinese-level tour to proceed with the travel of Chinese-level tour in its own name. Since the new Kynam-si, the new Kynam-si, in its name, performed the travel business within the Republic of Korea of China, the instant guidelines do not constitute the case of the name lending prohibited by the instant guidelines.

(2) Since the rapid increase of Chinese group tourists exceeded the Plaintiff’s capacity, it is inevitable to subcontract part of them to the extent that it does not interfere with the development of the tourism industry, such as subcontracting, and the absence of any civil petition due to subcontracting, etc., the Plaintiff’s damage is significantly high due to the cancellation of exclusive tourers than the public interest obtained through the revocation of designation of exclusive tourers, and thus, it is against the principle of proportionality or the principle of excessive prohibition, and the Plaintiff has run the travel business in good faith, and the Plaintiff has a significant portion and role in attracting Chinese group tourists, and the contribution ratio is considered, the instant disposition constitutes deviation and abuse of discretionary authority.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) As to the existence of the grounds for disposition

(A) Whether the instant guidelines are legally effective

The instant guidelines constitute administrative rules that provide for matters necessary for the designation, management, and operation of events that the Defendant is exclusively in charge of tourism in the Republic of Korea for Chinese group tourists. Generally, administrative rules only have effect within an administrative organization and do not have external binding force. However, in exceptional cases where a statutory provision grants a specific administrative agency the authority to determine the specific matters of the relevant statute, and exceptionally, the delegated administrative agency specifically provides for matters that are to be the contents of the relevant statute in the form of administrative rules in the form of administrative rules, insofar as administrative rules do not go beyond the bounds of delegation of the relevant statute, it becomes effective as an order of laws and regulations binding externally (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1915, Jun. 9, 1998). In addition, if administrative rules, which are standards for exercising discretionary power, are enforced, and administrative rules, which are standards for the protection of equality and trust, are not in force, and administrative agencies are in violation of the principle of equality or the principle of protection of trust, and thus, administrative agencies are subject to such administrative rules and dispositions are 200.

However, the guidelines of this case were enacted pursuant to the records of this case, not the law, and it cannot be recognized as a legal order in this respect because they were not delegated by the law. However, considering the fact that the guidelines of this case were enacted pursuant to the records of Nos. 2, 8, 9, 14, 16, and 17 (including the serial numbers), the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: ① the guidelines of this case was enacted on July 1998 and implemented for a long time after being revised 12 times; ② the guidelines of this case were posted on the website of the Korea Travel Association to which the plaintiff, etc. belongs; ③ the defendant designated and managed the exercise exclusively in accordance with the guidelines of this case, and cancelled the designation thereof; ④ the Ministry of Justice's immigration office, the Korea National Tourism Organization, and the Seoul National Police Agency have requested the defendant to impose appropriate sanctions against the travel company in violation of the guidelines of this case; and thus, the guidelines of this case became legitimate administrative disposition or disposition in violation of the principle of equality, barring special circumstances.

(B) Lending the name;

With respect to whether the Plaintiff’s permission to conduct the domestic travel business of Chinese group tourists, which the Plaintiff had been attracting from the Chinese travel company, to the new KIIGs, is the name name of the Chinese travel company. ① The instant guide was prepared pursuant to the SIGs. It is reasonable to view that the instant 'SIGs' refers to all of the activities related to the travel within the Republic of Korea. ② Article 3 of the Guideline provides that the exclusive travel business of Chinese group tourists may be designated by taking into account the financial status, the plan to attract Chinese tourist, the plan to secure qualification, and past administrative records. Article 7 provides that the Defendant may conduct a fact-finding survey on the above requirements, and the exclusive travel business of Chinese group tourists may be arbitrarily subcontracted to a third party, and the exclusive travel business of Chinese group tourists, which the exclusive travel company has opened, shall not be able to verify whether the exclusive travel business of Chinese group tourists is equipped with the above conditions, and thus, it is reasonable to separately designate the exclusive travel business of Chinese group within the scope of its business. ③ The exclusive travel business scope of Chinese company is designated by the 's.

(2) As to the deviation and abuse of discretionary power

(A) If the cancellation or withdrawal of a beneficial administrative disposition is made, it would infringe on the people's vested vested rights. Thus, even if there are grounds such as cancellation, the exercise of the right to cancel, etc. is necessary for important public interest to justify the infringement of the vested rights. If there is a need to protect the interests of a third party, it shall be determined by comparing and comparing it with the disadvantage that the other party receives (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7606, Jul. 22, 2004).

(B) On the other hand, the case was designated as a Exclusive Tour since 2012, and the plaintiff agreed that the guidelines of this case should be faithfully complied with, and contrary to this, although it was well aware of the contents and purport of the guidelines of this case, the plaintiff allowed a third party to conduct travel business in Korea of Chinese organization tourists. The plaintiff has a large degree of criticism by repeatedly lending 135 Chinese organization tourists on six occasions. ② If such lending of name is delayed, it is necessary to strictly manage the case because it is difficult to control illegal acts such as escaping from the Chinese organization tourists' unauthorized permission, employment of a Unqualified Tourist, and coercion of shopping for tourists, etc.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge and associate judge

Judges Kim Gin-won

Judges Domination