2018Nu4381 Action to revoke a license for marine passenger transportation services

A Stock Company

Attorney Kang Jin-tae, Man-man, and Demotion

Law Firm Yong-Nam, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Il-ok

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office

Law Firm Roon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant, Appellant]

B A.

Attorney Yellow-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Law Firm Gyeong-woo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Jeong Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 2017Guhap21090 Decided September 14, 2018

July 19, 2019

September 20, 2019

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal, including the costs of supplementary participation, are borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition to grant a license to the Defendant for marine passenger transport business on January 20, 2017 to the Defendant joining the Defendant is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status of the parties

1) On September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff is a scheduled coastal passenger transportation service provider who operated a passenger vessel on the said service route with a license for regular coastal passenger transportation services for C-D service route from the Defendant on the following grounds:

A person shall be appointed.

2) The Defendant is an administrative agency responsible for granting a license for maritime passenger transport services for C-D routes. 3) The Intervenor is a regular maritime passenger transport service provider operating passenger ships on September 3, 2013 after obtaining a license for regular coastal passenger transport services for C-D routes from the Defendant.

(b) Public announcement of selection of business operators;

1) On November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation against the Defendant that “the revocation of a license for regular passenger transport services issued to the Intervenor on September 3, 2013,” and the judgment of the first instance court against the Plaintiff was rendered (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Guhap3186, Dec. 11, 2015). The above license disposition against the Intervenor was unlawful because it did not meet the transport demand standard under Article 5(1)1 of the former Marine Transportation Act (amended by Act No. 1302, Jan. 16, 2015); thus, the Plaintiff rendered a favorable judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu6921, Apr. 12, 2016), and the Supreme Court rendered a final judgment against the Defendant and the Intervenor (the Intervenor’s final judgment became final and conclusive pursuant to the aforementioned paragraph 36, Apr. 23, 2016).

2) In accordance with Article 4(2) of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act on January 10, 2016, and Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, the Defendant publicly announced the recruitment of regular providers of coastal passenger transportation services on the C-D route as follows (Notice of Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 2015-220, hereinafter “Notice of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries”) (No. 8).

1. Business outline 1. Business outline: CAD (118 EM), departure and destination / final destination : C (D)/D (C)* Conditions: D Island residents' traffic rights (one day living zone) and for securing and convenience of D islands, for a period of at least one year (four months) shall be the departure of D.

2. The period for submitting a proposal and the period for submitting a proposal: 3. The person who intends to carry on the passenger transport business or the passenger transport business under the Marine Transport Act and who has no ground for disqualification under Article 8 of the said Act shall be prepared in accordance with the standards for evaluation of the project proposal and the guide for preparation; 4. The period for submitting a proposal and the place for submitting a document: October 19, 2016: The period for submitting a document: 09:0 to 18:00: the place for submitting a document: The date for submitting a document including a document proving the proposal and the method for submitting a document: 10 copies of the proposal; 4. Where the examination committee for selecting the project implementer and the committee for selecting the project implementer are two or more persons, the highest score for selecting the project proposal shall be selected; where the highest score for securing the vessel is higher, the person who has a high score for securing the vessel, and where the project implementer is unable to obtain more than the highest one's license and the method for submitting a document within 80.

3) On October 27, 2016, the Defendant published a public announcement on the selection of a business operator (an alteration) that changes the terms and conditions of the business in the said public announcement to the effect that “the starting time shall be the morning during a period of not less than a certain period of not less than one year (four months)” (hereinafter referred to as “public announcement in this case after combining the said F public announcement with the period of not less than a certain period of not less than one year).

4) At the time of the public announcement of this case, the Defendant informed the general matters, the evaluation items of the project proposal and the evaluation criteria (hereinafter referred to as the "detailed evaluation criteria for the project proposal") in the "written guidance for the assessment of the project proposal" (Evidence A 9) as follows.

1. The criteria for the evaluation of project proposals and guide 1. General Matters 1. The public offering backgroundC-D application for a new license is made; 2. The public announcement on the selection of project operators to secure the traffic rights of Dbooks residents, to promote D tourism, and to select excellent business operators through fair competition and examination: The public announcement on the selection of project operators on October 19, 2016: The deadline for submission of proposals on October 10, 2016: 10: 00 to 2016; 18: the organization and examination of the committee for the examination of selection of project operators on August 17, 2016; the announcement on the evaluation of project proposals; the announcement on the selection of project operators; the implementation of the evaluation standards for the project (45 points); the implementation of the project implementation plan (10), the safety management plan (15), the plan for recruitment of human resources (10) and the announcement on the selection of new convenience facilities (20 points) for mobility disadvantaged persons; the announcement on the selection of project operators and announcement of new facilities (3).

. Selection of highest-value braille in the bill II (hereinafter omitted). Evaluation items and evaluation criteria [Article 2-2 [Attached Table 1] of the Public Notice of Domestic Maritime Transportation Management shall be the same as evaluation slips in accordance with the procedures and evaluation criteria for selecting operators of coastal passenger transportation services, and detailed evaluation criteria for each item are omitted]

A person shall be appointed.

(c) Selection of passenger transportation service providers;

1) On October 28, 2016, an intervenor prepared and submitted a business proposal to the Defendant on October 28, 2016, and there was no subscriber to the project proposal other than the intervenor. [In accordance with the public notice of this case, the highest winner is selected from among the business entities whose evaluation score assessed in accordance with the detailed evaluation criteria for each type of project proposal is at least 80 points, and the intervenor is selected from the business entity, if the evaluation score is at least 80 points.]

2) The Defendant organized the Passenger Transport Service Selection Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Selection Committee”) on November 15, 2016, and tried to proceed with the procedures for the examination of participants. However, due to the issue of verifying actual names on the evaluation table and the refusal of some examiners to attend the examination, the Defendant had been postponed three times on December 2, 2016, and completed the composition of the Selection Committee and conducted the examination.

3) On December 2, 2016, the Selection Committee examined the Intervenor’s project proposal in accordance with the detailed evaluation criteria for the project proposal on December 2, 2016, and granted the Intervenor a total of 569 points (700 points) and an average of 81.29 points as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

D. According to the aforementioned review, the Defendant publicly announced that the Intervenor was selected as a regular provider of passenger transportation services within C-D routes as follows (F of the Korea Coastal Sea and Port Office, G).

2) On January 20, 2017, upon receiving a license from the Intervenor on December 20, 2016, the Defendant granted a license for regular coastal passenger transportation services (No. 12-2) to the intervenors as follows pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Marine Transportation Act (hereinafter “instant license”).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

The time table for operation shall be attached.

A person shall be appointed.

E. Relevant statutes

The Act and subordinate statutes on the licensing disposition of this case are as shown in the attached Form 2.

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

(a) The intervenor's defense prior to the merits;

The Plaintiff constitutes a third party, not the other party to the instant disposition regarding the instant license disposition. The disadvantage that the Plaintiff may incur due to the instant license disposition is expected to reduce the operating profit by adding a business operator on the same sea route, and such disadvantage is merely a factual and indirect abstract interest that is contrary to the instant license disposition, and thus, cannot be deemed a legal interest protected. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to standing to sue by filing an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the instant license disposition.

B. Determination

1) Even if a third party who is not the other party to an administrative disposition is not the direct party, if the interests protected by law are infringed by the administrative disposition, the party is entitled to obtain a decision of the propriety thereof by filing an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation or invalidity confirmation of the disposition. The term “legal interests” refers to cases where there are individual, direct, and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and regulations.

In addition, in cases where the Act, which is the basis of the beneficial administrative disposition such as license, authorization, permission, etc., generally aims to prevent unreasonable management due to excessive competition among the relevant business operators, the existing business operators, who are conducting business upon receiving the beneficial administrative disposition such as license, authorization, permission, etc., from another business operator, are standing to seek revocation of the relevant administrative disposition even if they are not the other party to the administrative disposition such as license, authorization, permission, etc., which was taken against the relevant business operator (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du10512, Jun. 10, 20

2) According to Article 4(1) of the Marine Transport Act, a person who intends to operate a marine passenger transport business shall obtain a license for each type of business from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries. Such a license is to maintain order in the sea transport and fair competition for each type of business. The purport of obtaining a license is to maintain order in the sea transport and fair competition, and to ensure the smooth transport of passengers by examining the safety and convenience of the sea route in which the ship operates, thereby promoting the sound development of the sea transport business and improving the convenience of users (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du17868, Jan. 15, 200

Therefore, if the existing maritime passenger transportation service provider’s service route overlaps with the existing maritime passenger transportation service provider’s new service route, and it is anticipated that the existing provider’s profit will decrease, it is reasonable to view that the existing maritime passenger transportation service provider and the existing maritime passenger transportation service provider are in a competitive relationship. Therefore, the existing maritime passenger transportation service provider has legal interest in seeking cancellation of a new maritime passenger transportation service license granted to the passenger transportation service provider (see Supreme Court Decisions 2015Du53824, Apr. 26, 2018; 2001Du4450, Oct. 25, 2002).

3) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff was operating a passenger ship on the C-D route from September 8, 2016 with a license for regular coastal passenger transportation services from the Defendant, but the Intervenor had been operating the passenger ship on the same service route due to the instant license disposition, and the Plaintiff and the Intervenor are in a competitive business relationship. In such a case, the Plaintiff’s benefits that the Plaintiff gets as a regular coastal passenger transportation service provider prior to the instant license disposition are legally protected legal interests, and thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to have the Plaintiff’s right to seek revocation of the instant license disposition. Accordingly, the Intervenor’s main safety defense is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant license disposition should be revoked because it is unlawful for the following reasons.

A. Illegal grounds for the recruitment of new enterprisers

1) According to Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, the non-requirements of public offering of operators, the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, and the notification of inland navigation pursuant to the delegation thereof, a new operator shall not be recruited for one year from the date of commencement of operation with respect to a sea route in which an operator is selected, but if deemed necessary to secure the traffic rights of islanders, a new operator may be recruited even before one year elapses.

However, even though the Plaintiff was selected as a new business operator by the Defendant on July 1, 2016 and had commenced operation on September 8, 2016, the Defendant did not recognize the necessity of public offering, such as 'the securing of traffic rights of ordinary people' as stipulated in the above notification on October 19, 2016, the Defendant publicly announced the instant case to invite new business operators, and issued the instant license to B who responded to the said public offering, and thus, the instant license disposition in violation of the requirements for public offering as stipulated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Marine Transportation Act.

2) The instant license disposition in violation of discretion by public offering of business operators is not for securing traffic rights and benefits to the intervenors, but merely for preferential measures taken with the intent to grant a business license to the intervenors. The instant license disposition in violation of the principle of proportionality is against the principle of proportionality, even though the Plaintiff, etc., who is an existing business operator, was able to achieve by changing the schedule of operation, and the Defendant granted a license to the intervenors by conducting a new business without examining and reviewing it.

(b) Non-existence of a license route;

The Defendant granted an intervenor a license for regular coastal passenger transportation services with the service route subject to the license in the instant license disposition as “C-D (H), which is not a legally recognized service route as separate from the 'C-D' service route publicly notified by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries in accordance with the Marine Transportation Act, and thus, the instant license disposition is unlawful.

C. Violation of criteria for review evaluation

The Defendant’s Selection Committee: (a) erroneously assessed the Intervenor’s criteria for evaluation for each item; or (b) arbitrarily assessed the Intervenor’s criteria beyond the criteria for evaluation; and (c) if the Intervenor’s criteria are corrected, the Intervenor’s measure against the Intervenor is unlawful, since it falls short of average 80 points

1) The committee for selection of violation of the safety management plan items grants 55 points to intervenors (three examiners) in the evaluation of the safety management plan ( Appropriateness of safety management), but M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”) planned by a participant to entrust safety management duties in a business plan only to oil tankers, chemical products carriers, and other cargo ships (general cargo ships) but did not meet the safety management agency requirements for passenger ships under Article 51(2) of the Maritime Safety Act. Thus, the above 55 points must be deleted in its entirety.

2) The committee for selection of violation of the order items set forth in the evaluation of the order items at the evaluation date of the order items as the evaluation date of the order items, calculated the age of J of the passenger ship owned by the intervenor as 11 years (the corresponding point 14 points) and granted 98 points to the intervenors (14 points x 7 points). However, the above order of the passenger ship was already built on October 31, 2004 and its age reaches 12 years (the corresponding point 13 points) at the time of the examination date of the instant case (the date of December 2, 2016). Thus, 7 points out (1 x 7 points) should be deleted.

3) In the evaluation of "the selection committee for the violation of item (a) of mooring facilities", the selection committee for the violation of item (b) deemed that the intervenor secured the mooring facilities under item (a) of "the right to use mooring facilities for vessels", and granted 35 points (i.e., five points and seven points and a full score) to the intervenor. However, Paragraph (1) cannot be deemed to have already been used by the plaintiff and Qa Co., Ltd. for 24 hours, and thus, the above 35 points must be entirely deleted.

4) In the appraisal of the items of transportation convenience facilities, the committee for selection of a violation of the evaluation of items of transportation convenience facilities determined that the passenger ship owned by a participant has such convenient mobility equipment as stipulated in the Act on Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and its Enforcement Decree, and the participant has given 6 points (1 x 6) additional points to the passenger ship owned by a participant. However, the above passenger ship did not have convenient mobility equipment properly under the Act on the Protection of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons, so the above

4. Determination

A. Whether the grounds for the recruitment of new business entities are illegal

1) Legal nature of licenses for marine passenger transportation services

According to Article 4 (1) and (3) and Article 5 (1) 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 type of service route, and shall submit an application accompanied by a business plan to the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries shall examine whether the said

In full view of the contents of the relevant statutes, the license for marine passenger transport services is a beneficial administrative act that grants a specific person the right or interest, and constitutes discretionary act that ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the transport demand of the relevant service route, suitability of mooring facilities, etc., safety of marine transportation, convenience of users, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Du18215, Dec. 11, 2008). The establishment of the license standards for marine passenger transport services within the scope prescribed by the relevant statutes and determination of whether the license standards are satisfied is also an administrative agency’s discretion. Thus, insofar as it is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, the administrative agency’s intent should be respected as far as it is possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Du9812, Nov. 29, 2012; 2013Du13440, Jul. 10, 2014).

(ii) the facts of recognition

The following facts are acknowledged or there is no counter-proof in light of the following facts according to the respective descriptions and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 15, 22, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 21, and 27.

(1) On April 27, 2016, the N Committee composed of the representatives of social organizations, fishermen, etc. within the jurisdiction of the Gyeongbuk-gun, submitted a civil petition with the purport that "D residents shall start from D-C Routes and request a public offering of passenger transport service providers starting from C-C Routes and starting from P.C. (Evidence 21)." (2) The intervenor submitted a civil petition with the content that "(D residents 6,184, tourists 793 and 6,978, "C-D-D, the living route of residents, suffer from the pain of monopoly for 32 years," and the defendant submitted a new report with the content that "C-D', the living route of the residents, will secure the right of transportation of the residents through genuine multiple navigations and autonomous competition," and submitted a new report with the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries to the defendant as to D-C. 16.28 (No. 196.28).

The number of passenger ships placed on the route C-D route is two, including one nearby P-D route, and the total number of them are operated. The number of tourists are more than D residents, and the increase or decrease of users is caused by domestic sports change.- The trend of business 400,000 x 320,014 x 360,000 x 20,000 e-10,000 e-1,000 -6,000 -6,000 - 1,000 -6,000 -6,0000 - 1,000 -6,000 - 1,000 -6,0000 - 6,000 - 1,000 -6,000 - 1,000 - 6,000 - 1,000 - 6,000 - 1,06.

(4) On October 28, 2016, the Defendant publicly announced the recruitment of new operators of the service route C-D, and submitted a business proposal to the effect that "the Defendant shall operate a passenger ship departing from the A.M. 8:30 A.M. on October 28, 2016, with the condition that "at least four months (four months) shall depart from the Republic of Korea for a period of at least one year (four months) for the sake of securing and convenience of transportation rights (one-day life zone) of the residents in the service area." On October 28, 2016, the Intervenor submitted a business proposal to the Defendant that "the Defendant shall operate a passenger ship departing from the A.M. 8:30 P.M. and the passenger ship departing from the A.M. 9:30 P.M. in the

(5) On November 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the modification of the business plan with respect to the C-D service route to ensure and convenience of the residents’ traffic rights, as follows, and the Defendant approved the modification on November 18, 2016.

A person shall be appointed.

After that, from January 23, 2017 to March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the modification of the business plan with the content that the time of departure of C and the time of the existing operation of D from the place of departure to the place of departure and the time of departure to the place of departure and C from the place of destination, and all of them were authorized by the Defendant.

3) The conformity of the requirements for the recruitment of new business entities

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts and the following circumstances revealed in the argument in this case, it is reasonable to view that, at the time of the Defendant’s recruitment of new maritime passenger transportation service providers for C-D routes, one year has not elapsed since the Plaintiff, an existing business entity, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 2-2(2) of the Domestic Shipping Notice Act, had reasonable grounds for determining the existence of the requirements for recruiting business operators under the proviso to the same paragraph, i.e., the need to select an additional business entity for securing the traffic rights of

According to Article 5(1)1 of the former Marine Transportation Act (amended by Act No. 13002, Jan. 6, 2015), when the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries intends to grant a license for marine passenger transport services, he/she shall examine whether the commencement of the relevant services meets the transport demand criteria prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. According to Article 4(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 150, Jul. 7, 2015), even if the average transport rate (including preliminary vessels) of the total passenger ships (including preliminary vessels) already placed on the service route deemed the same as the service route for which a license for new marine passenger transport services is applied for new license for the last three years, even if the passenger ships of the relevant marine passenger transport services are included in the passenger ships of the relevant marine passenger transport services, it shall be maintained by at least 25/100.

However, the Revised Marine Transportation Act (amended by Act No. 13002, Jan. 6, 2015) in force as of the date of the instant license disposition (amended by Act No. 13002, Jan. 6, 2015) abolished the transport demand standard in order to improve users’ convenience and contribute to the sound development of the maritime transport service by removing barriers to the existing maritime passenger transport service provider for the same type of business rather than guaranteeing certain business profits.

② According to the civil petition content filed by the N Committee or the signature written by the D residents, D residents seem to have sought to secure a living zone for a long time by starting a A.M. and opening a regular passenger convenience for arrival in D, starting a P.C. ③ In particular, D residents who participated in the preparation of a "written signature for securing DNA traffic rights" are 6,184 persons with a limited population of 10,124 persons at the time, and they want to secure the traffic rights of D residents through navigation and autonomous competition. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that some of the above written signatures were written prior to the commencement of the operation of the Plaintiff’s passenger ship by the Plaintiff’s passenger ship does not need to select a new business operator on C-D route due to the Plaintiff’s passenger ship operation.

④ In consideration of the securing of the daily traffic rights of island residents, the Defendant recruited a new business entity by attaching a condition that D shall leave the area of departure for at least four months during the year, and the Intervenor also submitted a business plan to the Defendant in compliance with the above condition.

⑤ Although the date of the public invitation of new business entities is after the date of the public invitation, the plaintiff also has changed the operation hours to change the operation hours to C and arrive at C with the approval of the defendant, or has changed the operation hours to extend the operation hours to more than the initial scheduled time.

4) Whether a discretionary violation has been committed

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7, the fact that the intervenor rejected the intervenor's application to the effect that the plaintiff's application for a marine transportation company license for the same sea route on July 3, 2016, immediately after the plaintiff's appointment as a marine transportation company operator was completed, the defendant shall not make a public offering pursuant to Article 2-2 (2) of the Public Notice of July 8, 2016 (Evidence No. 5), and that the intervenor's application for a marine transportation company license for the above sea route on September 8, 2016, the defendant will proceed with procedures, such as a public offering, only if it is deemed necessary for securing the traffic rights of the island residents pursuant to Article 2-2 (2) of the Public Notice of the Port of Korea (Evidence No. 7).

However, in light of the circumstances and procedures of the recruitment of the business entities as seen earlier, and the letter of signature submitted by the business entity to the Defendant, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff asserted that the instant disposition constitutes preferential measures against the Intervenor, or that the Defendant was proceeding with the recruitment process by deviating from and abusing the scope of reasonable discretion as the licensing authority, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

5) Sub-committee

The Defendant, despite the commencement of the Plaintiff’s operation, recruited new operators on the C-D routes, is required to secure the transportation rights of residents pursuant to the proviso of Article 2-2(2) of the Notice of Coastal Navigation Notice. This is because it was judged that there was a deviation or abuse of discretionary power. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

B. Whether the licensee violates the license route

1) Legal principles

A) According to Article 4(1) of the Marine Transportation Act, a person who intends to operate marine passenger transport services shall obtain a license from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries for each sea route.

B) According to the provisions of Article 5-2 of the Marine Transportation Act, the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries may determine and publicly announce a sea route for coastal passenger transport services as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries in order to maintain the traffic rights of island residents. Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Article 5-2(1) and (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transport Act, where the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries announces the sea route for coastal passenger transport services, he shall indicate the departure and departure of the sea route, the port of call, and the

In addition, according to Article 3-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, when the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries publicly announces a sea route pursuant to Article 5-2(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, one of the departure and landing areas shall be publicly announced as another sea route unless there is any reason prescribed in the proviso (main sentence of paragraph (1)), and the departure and landing area of a sea route shall be determined as one of the international trade ports and coastal ports under Article 2 of the Harbor Act, ② a fishing port under subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the Fishing Villages and Fishery Harbors Act, ③ a fishing port under subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the Fishing Villages

C) According to Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Harbor Act and Article 3 (1) subparagraph 2 of the Harbor Act, the term “coastal port” is a port where a ship operating mainly between domestic ports enters and departs from a port, and its name, location, and area are determined by Presidential Decree. According to the name, location, and area of a port as specified in attached Table 1 of Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Act, upon delegation from the above provision, “D” is a coastal port and its location is a 'Gyeongbuk-do unit', and the water area includes both H and L in the area as described below.

A person shall be appointed.

D) According to Article 5-2 of the Marine Transportation Act, according to the "Public Notice of the Sea Route for Inland Passenger Transport Business (Public Notice of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries's Notice S, April 1, 2016, hereinafter referred to as the "Public Notice of the Sea Route") which was enforced at the time of the instant license disposition as delegated by Article 5-2 of the said Act, the c-D sea route is as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

L in the C-D route is included in the water zone of paragraph D. However, although the paragraph is not included in the water zone of paragraph D, it is possible to substitute the adjacent area and most of the routes overlap with the C-D route, and the main users overlap with the exception provided for in Article 3-2 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries indicated the C-D route as the 'C-D' route (Evidence 11, 2).

A) Although the ‘C-D' in the name of the sea route indicated in the notice of the instant sea route is indicated as ‘D (L)', it is reasonable to view that the ‘C-D' in the name of the sea route indicated in the notice of the instant sea route is not ‘D' but ‘C-D' in the name of the sea route indicated in the notice of the instant sea route, on the other hand, the ‘D' is not ‘D' in the name of the sea route, but ‘C-D' in the name of the sea route indicated in the notice of the instant sea route, and the ‘D' in the overall name of the sea route indicated as ‘D' in the overall name of the sea route is not ‘D' in the line, but not ‘D' in the line, and it is reasonable to view that it is not unlawful for the Defendant to grant a license in accordance with the provision of Article 3-2(2) of the Public Notice of Domestic Transport Act only for each marine passenger transport service, as the license granted by the Defendant to each marine passenger transport service in accordance with the Marine Transport Act.

B) As seen earlier, H is included in the water zone of D. As such, even if the Defendant issued a license for marine passenger transport services to the intervenors, it does not grant a license for a sea route that is not recognized by law, in violation of Article 4(1) of the Marine Transportation Act, even if the Intervenor granted a license for marine passenger transport services, which is part of the “D” as a final destination. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit. Whether the criteria for review and evaluation

1) The evaluation part of the safety management plan items

A) Contents of the relevant provisions

(1) According to Article 5 (1) 3 of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 2-2 (1) [Attachment 1] of the Public Notice of Coastal Passenger Transportation Act, when the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries intends to grant a license for marine passenger transport services, he/she shall examine whether the business plan (in the business plan) is in conformity with the safety of marine traffic and not likely to undermine the safety of marine traffic. The " Appropriateness of the safety management plan" among the evaluation criteria for the selection of regular coastwise passenger transport service providers is to be allocated 10 points per examiner depending on the appropriateness of the safety management plan of passenger ships, ② securing of the safety management organization of the ship company, and employment of dedicated personnel.

(2) Meanwhile, according to Article 21-5(1) and (2) of the Marine Transportation Act, a provider of coastal passenger transportation services may appoint a safety control manager to establish and implement the operation management rules, to ensure the safe operation of passenger ships, and to perform his/her duties.

According to Article 46(2) and (3), and Article 51(1) and (2) of the Maritime Safety Act, the owner of a vessel engaged in marine passenger transportation services pursuant to Article 3 of the Maritime Transportation Act shall establish and implement a safety control system, but may entrust it to a safety control agency referred to in Article 51. <2> A person who intends to operate an agency for the establishment and implementation of a safety control system entrusted by a shipowner shall register with the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries; and the same shall also apply to any modification to the matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries among the registered matters; and a person who intends to register a safety control agency shall establish a workplace safety control system referred to in

Accordingly, according to Article 47 (1) 1 (f) and 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Maritime Safety Act, a person who intends to register or change a safety control agency pursuant to Article 51 (1) of the Act shall submit an application for registration of change of safety control agency (including an application in electronic form) in attached Form 23 to the chief of a regional maritime affairs and fisheries office, along with documents (paragraph (1) 2 (a) and documents proving that the vessel he/she intends to conduct safety control as proxy is a vessel to establish and implement a safety control system under Article 46 (2) of the Act (paragraph (1) 2 (b) and (1) 1 (f) of the Act). According to Article 47 (3) 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Maritime Safety Act, a person who intends to register or change a safety control agency under Article 51

B) Comprehensively taking account of the contents of the relevant provisions as to the requirements for granting the evaluation points of the safety management plan items and the following circumstances revealed by the entire purport of the statement of Gap evidence No. 9 and the argument, the defendant is interpreted as not to be able to grant the evaluation points freely within the limit of 10 points, subject to examination according to the criteria set out in the detailed evaluation criteria of the project proposal, such as whether the defendant is able to appropriately perform safety management matters required by the Marine Transportation Act or the Maritime Safety Act in relation to the evaluation of the safety management plan items, as to whether the defendant is equipped with a subscriber's own safety management organization, whether to employ a person in exclusive charge, and in particular, whether to secure professional human resources for each field such as safety manager, such as the number of persons, qualifications, career, and level of salary, etc., and

(1) Relevant provisions, such as the Marine Transportation Act and the Public Notice of Coastal Shipping Act, do not require a safety control agency which has completed registration in accordance with the Marine Transportation Act and the Maritime Safety Act to entrust safety control services to the relevant vessel or the same vessel at the time of examination.

The detailed evaluation criteria for the project proposal(A) announced by the defendant are 0 to 10 points after the examination committee directly determines whether the evaluation committee members have sufficiently secured professional human resources for each field, such as safety managers in consideration of the number of persons, qualifications, career, level of salary, etc. in relation to the evaluation criteria for the appropriateness of the safety management plan.

③ All the provisions of the Maritime Safety Act concerning the registration of safety control agencies, such as Article 47(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Maritime Safety Act, are premised on the fact that a shipowner entrusted safety control services is a maritime passenger transportation service provider of the relevant vessel. If it is interpreted that a safety control agency should complete the registration of a change in the vessel on behalf of safety control agencies prior to the examination date, “a person who intends to operate maritime passenger transportation services, such as an intervenor, is not a maritime passenger transportation service provider,” and thus, it would result in unreasonable results that

C) the facts of recognition

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 22, 34, 40, and Eul evidence Nos. 16 and 25, and there are no counter-proofs.

(1) Since May 2013, M has registered and operated a safety control agency for oil tankers, chemical products carriers, and other cargo ships (one half cargo) in addition to vessel management business (No. 16-1).

(2) On March 1, 2016, the Intervenor entered into a public service contract with M to receive services, such as seafarers’ maritime technology and ship trading, as well as business support on passenger ship operation management rules from M (No. 26).

(3) In the Intervenor’s business proposal, the Intervenor: (a) entrusted safety management services to M as a safety management agent; and (b) provided the safety management manager with the annual salary of KRW 66 million. The Intervenor’s safety management organization is as follows; and (c) V, a safety management manager, is a person qualified after completing the safety management responsibility process prescribed by relevant laws and regulations, as M affiliated with M.

A person shall be appointed.

(4) On December 2, 2016, the Selection Committee rendered various evaluation scores from 6 to 9 points for each examiner’s free judgment on the adequacy of safety management plans, in accordance with each examiner’s free decision, among two safety experts belonging to the Korea Anti-Safety Technology Corporation and the Korea Coast Guard Headquarters.

(5) On January 6, 2017, prior to the commencement of J’s navigation, the Intervenor established and implemented the passenger ship operation management rules upon examination by the Defendant.

(6) When M was selected by an intervenor as a marine transport business entity, on January 27, 2018, in order to implement the vessel officer agreement entered into between the intervenor and the intervenor, M completed the registration of a safety control agency modification on the content that J owned by the intervenor is included in the vessel of safety control (Evidence B(25).

D) Scope of discretion

According to the above facts of recognition, the intervenor established and implemented a direct safety control system in preparation for the selection of marine transport business operators, or prepared a detailed plan such as entrustment to M who is scheduled to register the change of the vessel to J as a safety control agency, and it is reasonable to deem that the selection committee granted 55 points to the intervenors through an appropriate evaluation of the Intervenor's safety control plan, and it is difficult to find that the reasons asserted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant or the Selection Committee abused or abused discretion on the determination of the business recruitment requirements and made a arbitrary evaluation.

E) Whether the safety management plan violates the evaluation criteria for safety management plan items

According to the above, the defendant erred in the evaluation criteria for the items of the safety management plan.

It is not recognized that arbitrary evaluation was conducted beyond the evaluation criteria.

2) Appraisal of the age items of passenger ships

A) Discretionary scope on the determination of evaluation base date of the age of the vessel

(1) A license for marine passenger transportation services is a beneficial administrative act that accords a specific person with rights or interests, and constitutes discretionary act that ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the transport demand of the relevant service route, suitability of mooring facilities on vessels, safety of marine transportation, convenience of users, etc., and determination of whether a license for marine passenger transportation services falls under the discretion of an administrative agency, and thus, the administrative agency’s intent should be respected as far as it is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du13440, Jul. 10, 2014).

(2) Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Ship Safety Act provides that the date when the vessel was advanced shall be determined as the time of calculating the age of the vessel, and the criteria for assessing the resistant shipping shall be limited to the allocation method of the passenger ship to the age of the vessel, and does not provide a separate provision on the evaluation basis of the age of the vessel. Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Maritime Transportation Notice [Attachment 1] provides that the criteria for evaluating the project proposal shall be examined according to the evaluation items and evaluation criteria in relation to the assessment of the project proposal, but matters not provided for in the evaluation table shall

(3) According to the contents and purport of the aforementioned relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the standard of appraisal of the order belongs to the “detailed assessment criteria by item for assessment,” and thus, it is within the Defendant’s discretion to determine it. Although the Defendant did not state the standard of appraisal of the order in the instant public notice, the Defendant has the discretion to determine it before the examination and assessment even after the public notice in this case, and accordingly, may determine the standard of appraisal of the order and conduct the examination and assessment accordingly.

B) the facts of recognition

The following facts are recognized, and there is no reflective evidence, according to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 22 and 28 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

(1) On October 31, 2004, the Defendant discovered the fact that the passenger ship J, which the Intervenor intends to operate, was advanced on October 31, 2004 and the change in the age of the vessel occurs during the period of public announcement for the selection of business operators, and asked the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries on November 11, 2016 (No. 22-1) as to the standard date for appraisal of the order (No. 22-1), and the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries sent a reply to the licensing authority on November 14, 2016 to select an appropriate standard for appraisal (No. 22-2).

(2) On November 15, 2016, the Defendant held a review meeting on the base date for assessing the order of passenger ships according to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries’s response, and the review date can be flexible and changed when comparing various cases, such as the criteria for calculating the age of application for various examinations, such as the public official examination, and the criteria for recognition of the validity period of license (license). Therefore, if it becomes a reference point, the fairness of administrative affairs cannot be achieved. Therefore, it is reasonable to set the public announcement date as the basis for the public announcement date, and determined that the public announcement of the public announcement of the public announcement of the business operator’s recruitment should be considered as the base date for assessing the order of the public official (No. 2

(3) Accordingly, on December 2, 2016, the examiners of the Selection Committee determined that the date of the instant public announcement ( October 19, 2016) was 11 years and that the J’s age was 14 each 14 points to the intervenors (i.e., the number of 25 points) (i.e., the number of 14 points) was 98 points.

(4) The Incheon Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, the Female Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, the Magna Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, the Magna Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, and the Magna City Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, etc. recently sent a reply that they were selected as follows if the evaluation of the

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

C) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused or not

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the defendant or the Selection Committee set the public announcement date as the standard date for the evaluation of the order of the business operator as above was a reasonable decision made based on the grounds and reasons for the public announcement through due process and sufficient review. It is difficult to recognize that the defendant or the Selection Committee’s arbitrary selection was made by abusing or abusing discretion.

① The base point for the evaluation of the age of a vessel may include various cases such as the deadline for submission of the project proposal, the date of examination, the date of actual examination, the date of date of announcement of the results of the selection of the project implementer, the date of disposition of license, the date of commencement of operation, etc. However, it is difficult to conclude that the only one base point is right and wrong.

In order to make the best fair and reasonable selection of the evaluation base date of the age of the Defendant, the Defendant made an inquiry at the Marine Transfersan Book, followed internal meetings on November 15, 2016, and determined the evaluation base date as the date of the instant public announcement. On December 2, 2016, the Selection Committee assessed the order in accordance with the aforementioned decision. ③ The issue of how to set the criteria for the examination may have a serious impact on fairness in the examination, and may result in a significant result of the determination of the appropriateness of the selection of the subscribers, and thus, the predictability of the subscribers shall be sufficiently considered in selecting the said criteria (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 9Hun-Ma123, Jan. 27, 2000). However, when the date of the examination or actual examination is considered as the evaluation base date, the predictability of the subscribers may not be considerably unstable. In fact, the Defendant completed the examination procedure on November 15, 2016, but the Defendant could delay the attendance of the Examination Committee on two occasions due to the issue of real name verification and refusal of the members.

④ The Incheon Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, the Female Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, the Sinsan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, the Sinsan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, the Sinsan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, etc. have conducted the examination by referring the date of public announcement as the standard date of evaluation of the order. The Masan Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, which was previously the date of evaluation as the standard date of evaluation of the order, was conducted from November 2018 as the standard date of evaluation of the order. Thus, the Defendant’s public announcement of the public announcement of the business is not deemed to be a special

D) Whether the standard of appraisal for items of passenger ships’ age is violated

According to the above, it is not recognized that the defendant erroneously determined the evaluation criteria of the passenger ship's age items or conducted arbitrary evaluation beyond the evaluation criteria.

3) Assessment of items for securing mooring facilities of vessels

A) Facts of recognition

According to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 9, 22 and Eul evidence Nos. 14 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the following facts are recognized and there is no reflective evidence:

(1) According to the detailed evaluation criteria of the project proposal announced by the Defendant, in relation to the assessment of vessel mooring facilities, passenger services, and visa, the following items can be granted a total of 35 points per examiner on the "security of the right to use mooring facilities".

○ Securing the right to use mooring facilities of vessels (five points)

(2) Around October 2016, the Intervenor requested the head of D Gun to consult on the use of harbor facilities (the period of use between 11.10 and 31. of the following year).

On October 25, 2016, the D head of the Gun sent a reply that "if a participant is selected as a regular coastal passenger service provider within the 17:20 p.m., it is possible to use the d.m. at the d.m. (11:0) and D.m. (17:20) considering the operating hours of the d.m., the passenger wharf at the 1stm. at the d.m. of the present d.m., "if considering the operating hours of the d.m. currently used, it is possible to use the d.m. passenger wharf only for a wharf facility used by the AL route".

(3) On October 28, 2016, the business proposal (Evidence A 22) submitted by the Intervenor to the Defendant on October 28, 2016, states that the following matters are stated with respect to vessel mooring facilities and passenger services. The J starts from November 1 of each year from March 1 to March 31 of the following year and arrives at C 12:50, and arrives at C from April 1 to November 10 of each year from April 1 to 8:30 to arrive at H. 11:50.

(2) Plans to use passenger ships, terminals, and passenger ship terminals for landing facilities.

- One ticket office - two (operating management department, one executive office), 2 2 o (1), 85 meters in length, and 2-6 meters in depth: A 1 copy of the consultation on use of a ship for transportation and tourism bus - attached 14.DD (passenger terminal terminal) 15, D group 15.Third, one office for the use of passenger ship terminals, one office for the use of passenger ship terminals, 2 OH terminal terminals, and one office for the 2nd H landing facilities : 270m/ depth: 270m in length, and 26m or 26m or 26m or more of passenger buses: A 13. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 3. 1. 1. 1. . . 1. 1. 1.

(4) According to the Intervenor’s business proposal, whether the Intervenor, starting from November 1 of each year to March 31 of the following year from J as of March 31, 200, arrived at C 12:50, starting from April 1 to October 10 of each year, starting from C to 8:30, and starting from April 1 to 11:50 to starting from November 10 of each year to starting in C to operate according to the plan arriving at H in 11:50. (b) Whether the Intervenor violated the criteria for evaluation of items for securing vessel mooring facilities.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the intervenor secured the right to use the mooring facilities by obtaining the answer that it is possible for the intervenor to use the mooring facilities during the time period that the intervenor intends to operate, in consultation with the head of D Gun. Moreover, as long as the detailed evaluation criteria for the project proposal provides that the intervenor shall grant 5 points to the intervenor when the right to use mooring facilities is secured, it cannot be recognized that the Selection Committee erred by misapprehending the evaluation criteria or conducted arbitrary evaluation beyond the evaluation criteria to give 35 points (5 points x 7 points) to the intervenor.

4) Appraisal of installation items of transportation convenience facilities

(1) According to the contents of the relevant provisions, Article 2 subparags. 7, 9 subparag. 1, 10(2), 11, 29, and 31 of the Mobility Act, Articles 11, 12 [Attachment Table 1] and [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and Article 2 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Act, the term “convenition convenience equipment” means facilities and equipment for convenient mobility of mobility disadvantaged persons when using means of transportation, passenger facilities, or roads, such as wheelchairs boarding equipment, elevators for disabled persons, sidewalks for disabled persons, resting facilities for disabled persons, etc., which are capable of breast oiling by pregnant women, and those for disabled persons to be installed in ships for marine passenger transportation under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Marine Transportation Act.

Meanwhile, pursuant to Articles 11, 12, 29, and 31 of the Mobility Disadvantaged Act, a person who installs and manages facilities subject to installation, such as a transport business operator, etc., shall install and maintain and manage convenient mobility equipment in compliance with the above installation standards when he/she installs facilities subject to installation or alters major parts thereof. <2 When a transport operation agency grants a license, permission, authorization, etc. for the means of transport and passenger facilities, it shall examine whether convenient mobility equipment installed in the means of transport and passenger facilities meet the installation standards under Article 10; and3 transport administrative agencies may issue a corrective order to a transport business operator who fails to install convenient mobility equipment in a facility subject to installation or fails to maintain and manage such installed convenient mobility equipment in compliance with the installation standards under Article 10, in violation of Article 11 of the Act.

B) the facts of recognition

According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 43 and the purport of the argument by the Intervenor, the J vessel owned by the Intervenor has a toilet exclusive for the disabled among convenient mobility equipment prescribed by the mobility disadvantaged Act and subordinate statutes (the oil room is not a facility for the transportation convenience of the vessel prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes of mobility disadvantaged persons), but there is no reflective document.

C) Requirements for granting additional points to convenient mobility equipment

According to the above facts, the intervenor installed only one toilet for the disabled among convenient mobility equipment, which is stipulated to be installed by the laws and regulations on the mobility disadvantaged persons in the J vessel, and the rest of the facilities was not installed, and the above toilet for the disabled alone does not meet the facility standards prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes on the mobility disadvantaged persons, and cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the duty of the transportation businessman as prescribed by the Acts

According to Article 2(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Mobility Disadvantaged Act, where it is impossible to install convenient mobility equipment in the structure of the J vessel, convenient mobility equipment may be installed, such as a room for exclusive use of persons with disabilities, not meeting the facility standards. However, it is difficult to view that the examination committee of the Selection Committee is a reasonable ground for granting additional points in the instant examination.

D) Whether the items of convenient mobility equipment violate the evaluation standards

Ultimately, even though the Intervenor cannot be deemed to have installed convenient mobility equipment under the Act on the Protection of Mobility Disadvantaged in the J vessel, deeming otherwise by the Selection Committee to grant a total of 6 points to the Intervenor is unlawful as it constitutes an abuse of discretion or discretion. Therefore, the Intervenor’s total evaluation point of the Intervenor’s 569 points should be excluded from 6 points received from the items of the said convenient mobility equipment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit.

5) Whether evaluation criteria violation and the licensing disposition of the instant case are unlawful

According to the above, among the total evaluation points of the intervenors 569, the additional points 6 points due to the installation of convenient mobility equipment under the Mobility Act are violated the evaluation standards, and the remainder does not violate the evaluation standards. However, even if the part of the evaluation standards are excluded from the violation of the evaluation standards, the evaluation points for the Intervenor are the total point 563 points, the average point 80.42 points. Thus, the intervenor who submitted the project proposal alone meets the criteria for the selection of the business operator (the highest point among the business operators with 80 points or more) prescribed in the public announcement of public offering

Therefore, even if the Defendant partly violated the above evaluation criteria in the review and evaluation of the Intervenor, it cannot be deemed that the instant license disposition against the Intervenor itself was unlawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge, judge and judicial police officer

Judge Gyeong-man

Judges Soh Hospital

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.

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.