(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.9.14.선고 2017구합21090 판결

The Defendant’s disposition of license for passenger transport services on January 20, 2017 against the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Status of the parties

1) On September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff is a maritime passenger transportation service provider who obtained a license for regular coastal passenger transportation services from the Defendant for the C-D service route and operates regular coastal passenger transportation services from the 8th of that month with the following contents (hereinafter referred to as “regular coastal passenger transportation service provider”).

A person shall be appointed.

2) The Defendant is an administrative agency responsible for granting a license for marine passenger transport services for C-D routes.

3) Meanwhile, on September 3, 2013, the Intervenor obtained a license for regular coastal passenger transportation services from the Defendant with respect to C-D routes. However, on November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit against the Defendant against the Defendant against the Plaintiff, seeking the revocation of the said license disposition against the Intervenor. Accordingly, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2014Nu6921) rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff that the said license disposition was revoked on the ground that the said disposition did not meet the transport demand standards prescribed in Article 5(1)1 of the former Marine Transportation Act (amended by Act No. 1302, Jan. 16, 2015) and the said judgment became final and conclusive by the Supreme Court’s dismissal of all the appeals filed by the Defendant and the Intervenor. Accordingly, the Intervenor’s license for regular passenger transportation services was revoked accordingly.

(b) Public announcement of selection of business operators;

1) On October 19, 2016, 400 days after the Defendant issued a license for marine passenger transport services, the Defendant publicly announced that the scheduled coastal passenger transport service provider will be selected for the C-D sea route in accordance with the “Public Notice of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries’s Notice of Notice of the Coastal Transport (No. 2015-220, hereinafter “Public Notice of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries”) under Article 4(2) of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule thereof, and the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act (hereinafter “Public Notice of the Coastal Transport”).

사업자 선정 공고1. 사업개요.○ 사업종류: 내항 정기 여객운송사업○ 항로명: CAD(운항거리 118마일)- 출발지 / 종착지: CAD) | D(C)※ 조건: D 도서민의 교통권 (1일 생활권) 확보 및 편익을 위하여 1년 중 일정기간(4개월) 이상은 D을 출발지로 하여야 함2. 신청자격해운법에 의한 여객운송사업자 또는 여객운송사업을 하고자 하는 자로서 해운법 제8조에 따른 결격사유가 없는 자3. 사업자 선정방법○ 사업자 선정위원회 심사위원들이 사업제안서 항목별 세부평가기준에 따라 평가한평가점수가 80점 이상인 사업자 중 최고득점자 선정동점자가 2인 이상일 경우 “사업계획” 평가점수가 높은 자를 선정하고, 재 동점

In the case of the selection of a business operator with a high appraisal point of "ship securing" as a business operator, if there is a matter inappropriate for the examination of suitability of the business plan under Article 5 (License Criteria) of the Marine Transportation Act, or if it is impossible to secure the passenger ship within the passenger ship input time specified in the proposal, etc., the selection of a subordinate (80 points or more) without re-public offering for the sake of prompt passenger transportation stability, if the selection of a business operator selected as a highest score braille is cancelled as a result of the cancellation of the designation of a business

2) In addition, on October 27, 2016, the Defendant again published a public announcement of the designation of a business operator (i.e., the designation of a business operator (i., the period of departure shall be the starting time, excluding the period of a ship inspection at a period of at least four months (four months) during one year) (i.e., the aforementioned F public announcement and the designation of a business operator (i.e., the designation of a business operator).

3) On the other hand, in the public notice of this case, the Defendant announced the general matters of the “project proposal evaluation criteria” and the detailed evaluation criteria and evaluation criteria of the project proposal to be submitted by the business operator (hereinafter “detailed evaluation criteria for the project proposal”) as follows.

Standards for the evaluation of project proposal and general matters concerning the project proposal ○○○ project performance capacity (45 points), financial soundness (20), safety management plan (10), human resource investment plan (15), ○○ project plan (5) project plan (15), vessel operation plan (10), vessel operation plan (10), securing mooring facilities and convenience facilities for users (10) - Additional points (10 points or less) - Additional points: The opener of a new route (2 points), the passenger satisfaction level as a result of the evaluation of the customer satisfaction level, whether convenient mobility equipment is installed (1 points) under the Act on Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged: The history of marine accidents, administrative dispositions (3 points), such as penalty surcharges, etc., and the customer satisfaction level (2 points).

* Notice of Coastal Shipping [Attachment 1] see Evaluation Table 1

4) Article 2-2 [Attachment 1] [Attachment 1] of the Notice of Domestic Maritime Transportation, the appraisal table according to the procedures and criteria for the selection of maritime passenger transportation service providers (hereinafter referred to as the "assessment criteria for domestic Maritime Transportation Notice") are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

[Attachment 1] The criteria for the announcement of inland sea transportation are the criteria for the announcement of inland sea transportation. The selection of the operator of passenger transportation service selection committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Selection Committee") 1) The intervenor independently prepared and submitted the business proposal (hereinafter referred to as the "project proposal of this case") to the defendant on October 28, 2016.

2) The Defendant examined the instant project proposal and tried to hold a selection committee on November 15, 2016 in order to determine whether a participant is selected as a regular passenger transport business entity for coastal passengers.

However, the Selection Committee was held on December 2, 2016 due to difficulties in selecting examiners.

3) Examiners of the Selection Committee examined the project proposal of this case in accordance with the detailed evaluation criteria for the project proposal of this case, and the intervenors assigned a total of 569 points (700 points) and an average of 81.29 points (hereinafter referred to as the "examination of this case") as shown below (attached 2).

A person shall be appointed.

[Attachment 2] A list of the examination and evaluation of project proposal of this case

(d) Obtaining a license for a regular provider of passenger transportation services within a participant;

1) Accordingly, the Defendant publicly announced that the Intervenor is selected as a regular coastal passenger transportation service provider as follows (F of the Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office F, G);

The name of the service route: The participant ○○ Enterprise selected as C-D ○: The selected passenger service provider shall submit a “application for a license for regular coastal passenger transportation services” within 30 days from the date of publication, and if the application is not made within the time limit, the selection of the service provider shall be revoked.B. If the contents and application made in the proposal are different, the license may be denied.

2) In addition, on December 20, 2016, the Defendant finally filed an application for a license for regular coastal passenger transportation services with respect to C-D routes from the Intervenor, and on January 20, 2017, the Intervenor granted a license for regular coastal passenger transportation services as follows pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Marine Transportation Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

AD(H)/0(1) - C/ C (C) : A license shall be issued in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Maritime Transportation Act, as the result of the review on the license for regular passenger transportation services in C-D(1) 1 a day on the part of the Intervenor’s request, since the 3-D(1) 2 and 3 of Article 5(1) of the Maritime Transportation Act was met.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, the purport of whole pleading

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

(a) The intervenor's defense on the principal safety;

The Plaintiff is a third party, not the other party to the instant disposition. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s disadvantage that may be incurred by the instant disposition is merely a fact that the Plaintiff is expected to reduce the Plaintiff’s operating profit as a competitor operating the same sea route added.

In addition, this disadvantage is a factual, indirect, or abstract interest as a result of the instant disposition, and is merely a factual, indirect, or abstract interest, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to infringe legal interests protected by the instant disposition.

Therefore, the plaintiff does not have standing to sue to file an administrative litigation seeking revocation of the disposition of this case.

(b) Existence of standing to sue

1) Even if a third party is not the direct counter-party to an administrative disposition, if the interests protected by law have been infringed due to the administrative disposition, he/she is entitled to obtain a decision of propriety by filing an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation or invalidity confirmation of the disposition

The term "legal interest" refers to a case where there are individual direct and specific interests protected by the relevant laws and regulations and relevant laws 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 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 type of business.

As such, the purport of obtaining licenses for each sea route lies in ensuring the maintenance of order and fair competition of marine transportation, and promoting the smooth transportation of passengers by examining the safety and convenience of the sea route in which vessels operate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du17868, Jan. 15, 2009).

Therefore, if it is expected that the existing maritime passenger transportation service provider will overlap with the existing maritime passenger transportation service provider's service route and the new maritime passenger transportation service provider will reduce the profit, it is reasonable to view that the existing maritime passenger transportation service provider and the new maritime passenger transportation service provider are engaged in competitive

Therefore, the existing maritime passenger transportation service provider has a legal interest in seeking revocation of the license for a new marine passenger transportation service provider (see Supreme Court Decisions 2015Du53824, Apr. 26, 2018; 2001Du4450, Oct. 25, 2002).

3) According to the facts acknowledged in the aforementioned “the circumstances of dispositions”, the Plaintiff is a scheduled coastal passenger transportation service provider operating passenger ships on the C-D service route from September 8, 2016, and the Intervenor obtained a license for regular coastal passenger transportation services on the same service route from the Defendant on January 20, 2017, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor are in a competitive business relationship.

Therefore, since the plaintiff is legally infringed on the disposition of this case, the plaintiff is recognized as standing to sue as there is a legal interest to seek revocation of the disposition of this case.

Ultimately, the Intervenor’s defense against the principal security is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the grounds as follows: (a) it constitutes a violation of the requirements for the recruitment of business operators prescribed by the relevant statutes and mistake of facts; and (b) it constitutes an abuse beyond the discretionary authority.

1) The instant disposition, which was the preceding procedure, was conducted in violation of the requirements for the recruitment of a business proprietor under the relevant statutes, including the Marine Transportation Act, and is unlawful.

On the C-D route in which the defendant selected a business operator, a new business operator may be recruited only after one year has elapsed from the date of operation, and on an exceptional basis, a new business operator may be recruited even before one year has elapsed, even if it is deemed necessary to secure traffic rights, etc. of island residents.

However, on September 8, 2016, the Defendant offered the instant public notice on October 19, 2016, which was 40 days after the Plaintiff started operating a scheduled coastal passenger vessel as a new business operator on September 8, 2016, with the intent to give preferential treatment to the intervenors, and recruited a new business operator. Moreover, the Defendant used the instant public notice only as the basis for the signature of the D residents that was made strokely without objective or reasonable examination.

2) The Defendant granted a license to the intervenors for a service route other than that specified in the public notice of the service route of coastal passenger transportation services in the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (K, hereinafter referred to as “public notice of service route”).

In full view of the provisions of Articles 4(1) and 5-2 of the Marine Transportation Act and the provisions of Article 5-2(1) of the Enforcement Rule thereof, a person who intends to operate coastal passenger transportation services may obtain a license only for the service route publicly notified by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries.

In addition, according to the sea route announcement enforced by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries from January 5, 2017, C-D route is divided into ① the sea route from which C departs to the final destination (217km) and ② the sea route from which C departs to the final destination (218km) and ③ the sea route from which C departs to the final destination (218km).

However, in the public notice of this case, the defendant indicated that the sea route name is "C-D (118 E-day navigation distance)", and as to the sea route from which the regular intervenor departed C as the place of departure to the place of departure, the defendant granted a new license for the course of departure to the place of departure of H.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is in violation of the above related Acts and subordinate statutes since the defendant granted a license to the intervenor with respect to the service route that does not exist in the public notice

3) The Defendant organized the Selection Committee to assess the instant project proposal submitted by the Intervenor. However, the Selection Committee set the Claimant’s evaluation score (average 81.29 points and total 569 points) in violation of the evaluation criteria set forth below (average 81.29 points and total 569 points). If the above evaluation score is corrected in accordance with the relevant provisions, the evaluation score for the Intervenor is merely an average of 71.57 points (total 501 points) that considerably less than the average of 80 points, which are the criteria for the selection of the business operator, and thus, the Intervenor was not able to be selected as a regular maritime passenger transport service provider from

Therefore, the instant disposition constitutes a violation of the discretionary authority when it exceeds the bounds of its review process or when it is abused (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff’s assertion according to the order of evaluation criteria for the notification of inland sea transportation”).

(1) A M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “M”) which has entrusted safety management affairs by a participant does not fall under a safety management agency registered under the relevant statutes, including the Marine Transportation Act and the Maritime Safety Act. Therefore, the total points of 55 points assigned by the Selection Committee in the items of assessment shall be excluded from all.

(2) The order of the J, which is a passenger ship of an intervenor, shall be calculated as 11 years, not exceeding 11 years, based on the date of the examination of this case ( December 2, 2016).

However, the Selection Committee calculated the 11 year’s age of the relevant passenger ship on the basis of the date of the instant public notice to give favorable points to the intervenors without any grounds. Therefore, 7 points (i.e., 14 points x 7 points) equivalent to one year’s age among the total evaluation points for the age of the passenger ship (i.e., 98 points (i.e., x 7) should be excluded.

③ The Intervenor failed to secure the mooring facilities of the vessel under paragraph (1). Therefore, the Intervenor’s total of 35 points granted by the Selection Committee in the assessment items (i.e., securing the right to use mooring facilities of the vessel) shall be excluded from all points.

(4) The intervenor did not properly have facilities for the transportation convenience of mobility disadvantaged persons under the Act on Promotion of the Transportation Convenience of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the Enforcement Decree thereof.

Nevertheless, six of the seven examiners who participated in the Selection Committee were assigned 6 points in total on the ground that the intervenors installed convenient mobility equipment under the Act on the Protection of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Details of the relevant provisions and relevant legal principles

A) According to Article 4(1), (2), and (3) 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 of business, and (2) The Minister of Oceans and Fisheries may invite business operators as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries when granting a license accordingly, and (3) a person who intends to obtain a license shall

In addition, according to Article 5 (1) of the Marine Transportation Act, the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries shall examine whether the above business plan satisfies the following standards, and the business plan shall include the nature of the transport demand in the relevant service route and the relevant service route, and it shall be ensured that commencing the relevant service does not cause any concern over hampering the safety of marine transportation, and shall establish an operation plan suitable for the convenience of users in carrying out the relevant service, and shall meet the standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, such as the quantity of passenger ships owned, the age and operation capacity of passenger ships, etc.:

Meanwhile, according to Article 53(1) of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 27(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, the authority of the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries concerning licenses for coastal passenger transportation services among the authority under the Marine Transportation Act shall be delegated to the head of the regional coast guard.

B) Furthermore, according to Article 3(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, where the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries or the chief of a regional maritime affairs and fisheries office intends to publicly recruit a business operator under Article 4(2) of the Marine Transportation Act, he/she shall publicly announce the necessary matters, such as the route and timing of granting a license for the marine passenger transport business, and ② the timing, procedure, detailed evaluation standards,

According to Article 2-2(1) and (2) of the Notice of Coastal Transport under the above delegation, ① the selection procedures and evaluation criteria for scheduled coastal passenger transportation service providers pursuant to Article 3(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act are as shown in attached Table 1. ② On the service route in which a business operator is selected, a new business operator may be recruited after the lapse of one year from the date of operation. However, if the chief of a regional maritime affairs and fisheries office deems it necessary to secure traffic rights of island residents even before the lapse of one year, a new business operator may be recruited.

C) Comprehensively taking into account the language, content, form, and system of such relevant provisions, a license for scheduled coastal passenger transportation services is a beneficial administrative act granting a specific person the right or interest to a specific person, and is subject to discretionary action that should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the securing of traffic rights to island residents, suitability of mooring facilities, etc., marine traffic safety, convenience of users, management and operation ability of those who intend to provide scheduled coastal passenger transportation

Therefore, the competent administrative agency's determination of the criteria for licenses for regular coastal passenger transportation services within the scope prescribed by the relevant regulations is also subject to the discretion of the administrative agency.

Therefore, as long as the competent administrative agency’s determination of whether a new business operator is recruited pursuant to the proviso to Article 2-2(2) of the Notice on Coastal Transport, and the business plan submitted by a person who intends to obtain a license is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable in order to secure traffic rights of island residents, it should be respected as much as possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du15783, Mar. 15, 2007; 2013Du13440, Jul. 10, 2014).

D. Determination on each issue

1) As to the assertion that a new business operator cannot be recruited

A) Facts of recognition

There is no dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 15, 22, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 21, and 27 (including additional numbers) and all pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged:

(1) On April 27, 2016, the N Committee Chairperson (Chairperson) was a temporary organization composed of social organizations, representatives of fishermen, etc. in the Gyeongbuk-gun, and received a civil petition with the following content from the Defendant:

D Residents start at A.M. and request a public recruitment of passenger transport service providers starting from C.C. In this case, the development of C-D route and the era of genuine multiple routes that have ceased for several years.

(2) On September 8, 2016, the Intervenor submitted a “written signature for securing DNA traffic rights” signed by the Defendant on July 2016, 2016, stating that “D residents 6,184, and tourists 793 are aware of the pains of monopolys for 32 years as D residents’ living routes. The true multiple lines operate and wanting to secure the traffic rights of D residents through voluntary competition.”

(3) On September 8, 2016, the Defendant is internally entitled to the Vice Minister of Oceans and Fisheries as follows:

The review report was prepared and reported.

The number of passenger ships placed on the route C-D route is two, and the number of nearby P-D routes is operated, including one adjacent P-D route.The users of the O-D route are more than D residents. The number of tourists is more than D residents, and the increase or decrease of users is caused by domestic sports change.-The number of passengers: 40,000 persons for the 360,000 - the 360,000 - the industry trend of the 20,000 - the 360,000 - the 20,000 - the 360,000 - the 20,015 after the cancellation of the license, submit an application for coastal passenger transportation services to return it to our office (as of May 9, 2016 and July 8, 201) - - the suspension of monopolys of the C-D route and the securing of residents' traffic rights (as of 2016).

- A D-R passenger vessel operation (E) through the change of D-R passenger vessel operation plan (A-D passenger vessel operation plan on September 13, 2016) through the change of D-R passenger vessel operation plan (C-D (C-D ( September 8, 2016) * A-Review of the application for a provisional disposition of suspension of public announcement and the filing of a lawsuit for cancellation on the ground of unfair administrative disposition, etc. within one year from the start date of operation - A-Review of the application for the change of operation time after the start of operation (C-R passenger vessel operation 10:50 ? 08:50 . 8. 2016) and the request of residents for the change of operation time (D-D passenger vessel operation time) - In consideration of the current demand of residents for new passenger vessel operation time to secure traffic rights through the new passenger vessel operation time (400,000) - the demand of residents for new passenger vessel operation convenience (200,000) - 10,004,000-1).

(4) Accordingly, upon making the instant public notice on January 10, 2016, the Defendant imposed a condition that “D’s business content should be set to the point of departure for a certain period of more than a year (four months) for the sake of securing and convenience of D’s traffic rights (one-day life zone).”

(5) According to the instant project proposal, the Intervenor plans to operate passenger ships departing from C to 8:30 A.M. at the time of tourism (4:10 months to 10 months), and passenger ships departing from P.M. at P. 9:30 P.M. at P.M. (11:3 months to 9:30 P.M.) at P.

(6) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for change of the business plan with respect to C-D routes for the purpose of securing and convenience of the residents’ traffic rights, as follows, and the Defendant approved the change of the operating hours 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 to change the departure period of C and the existing operation period of D to the destination from departure and the departure period of D to the destination and the departure period of C to the destination, and all of them were authorized every time.

B) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the relevant legal principles as seen earlier, the facts acknowledged as above, and the following circumstances revealed in the argument in this case, it is difficult to view that: (a) on the C-D route in which the Defendant already selected a business operator, it is necessary to secure the traffic rights of island residents on October 19, 2016, which was far earlier than one year after the date of operation thereof; and (b) soliciting new business operators as deemed necessary to secure the traffic rights of island residents, etc.; and (c) thereby, it cannot be deemed that it goes beyond the bounds of the discretionary authority or constitutes abuse

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(1) Article 5(1)1 of the former Marine Transportation Act (amended by Act No. 13002, Jan. 6, 2015) provides that “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 submitted by the applicant is in conformity with the following requirements,” and Article 5(1)1 of the same Act provides that “the commencement of the relevant business shall meet the transport demand criteria prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans

Accordingly, 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 of July 7, 2015) provides that "the standard of transport demand prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries" means the average transport rate (including reserve vessels) of the total passenger ships (referring to the rate of estimated revenues based on maximum transport capacity and actual transport capacity) already placed on the service route that is deemed as the same route as the service route for which a license for marine passenger transport services is newly applied for, which is at least 25/100 even if the passenger ships of the relevant marine passenger transport services are included in a new license application for a license."

However, the amended Marine Transportation Act (amended by Act No. 13002, Jan. 6, 2015) in force at the time of the instant disposition (amended by Act No. 13002, Jan. 6, 2015) abolished such transport demand criteria. The purpose of the amendment is to eliminate barriers to obstruct the entry of new operators, rather than guaranteeing certain business profits, to induce fair competition among the operators, thereby contributing to the sound development of marine transportation services by improving user convenience.

(2) In addition, with respect to land transport, there are many other means of transport that can be replaced by the means of transport such as roads, railroads, aviation, etc. so that users can easily use various other means of transport according to their needs and choice.

However, in the case of marine traffic, there are many opportunities for users to choose other means of transport except for the use of specific vessels licensed by administrative agencies.

(3) Ultimately, considering the developments leading up to the amendment of the aforementioned relevant provisions of the Marine Transportation Act and the special characteristics of the use of marine transportation, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant has broad discretion to determine the “where it is deemed necessary to secure the traffic rights of ordinary people” as stipulated in the proviso of Article 2-2(1) of the Notice on Coastal Transport in determining the “where it is deemed necessary for securing the traffic rights of ordinary people, etc.,” and the Defendant’s decision should

In addition, ‘security of traffic rights by ordinary people' is also an important factor in the aspect of transport demand, such as whether other maritime transport business operators are operating on the same service route, as well as whether the passenger transport services are provided in line with the needs and convenience of users.

(4) We examine this premise.

(A) The Intervenor submitted to the Defendant a “written sign of securing D traffic rights” signed by 6,977 D residents (6,184) and tourists (793 persons) to the effect that it is necessary to secure the traffic rights of ordinary people (e.g., from July 8, 2016 to November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the above written signature was prepared to secure the traffic rights of the island residents after the date of commencement of the Plaintiff’s operation and that part of the signature was fabricated, as well as there was no connection with securing the traffic rights of the island residents after the date of commencement of the operation. The above collective signature signature is not a document with any legal effect, but is merely a civil petition that there is inconvenience in the use of a regular passenger ship operated by C-D route. In light of the purpose of preparing the above collective signature signature document and its ordinary method of preparation and management, it is reasonable that the Defendant’s “D traffic rights” as a reference material for securing the traffic rights of the residents, and that it is more than one half of the aforementioned 30D residents’s as a single document.

Therefore, it is difficult to view any change in circumstances as to the fact that the Plaintiff’s new passenger ship operation began after the above signature was made. The mere fact that there is a need to operate a number of ships on the C-D service route, and it is still difficult to view that there is a change in circumstances regarding the necessity of the competitive operation of various ships on the C-D service route.In addition, D residents wish to carry out regular passenger transportation within the country, starting from the C-D service route to secure one-day living zone for a long time, and arriving from P.C.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendant: (a) publicly recruited a regular coastal passenger transportation service provider; (b) attached a condition that D should depart from the Republic of Korea for at least four months a year; and (c) the Intervenor drafted and submitted the instant project proposal in accordance with its standard.

The plaintiff himself fully recognized the need to adjust these hours of operation, and changed the hours of operation from A.M. to C during a certain period after the date of the public announcement of this case. In addition, the plaintiff filed an application for change of the business plan with the defendant several times to extend the operation plan to more than the original plan.

In light of the Plaintiff’s response attitude against such regular passenger transportation, it is reasonable to view that even after the Plaintiff commenced the operation of passenger ships on the C-D route on September 8, 2016, the transport right for the daily life zone of the residents of the D Island was not fully secured.

C) Although the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant announced the instant case solely for the purpose of giving preferential treatment to the intervenors, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other objective evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(5) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

2) As to the assertion that a sea route publication has been violated

A) Contents of the relevant provisions

According to Articles 4(1) and 5-2 of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 5-2(1) and (4) of the Enforcement Rule thereof, 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, and 2) The Minister of Oceans and Fisheries may determine and publicly notify the route of the coastal passenger transport service as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries in order to maintain the traffic rights of island residents. In such cases, the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries shall indicate and publicly notify the departure from the service route, the port of call, and the distance between the landing point and the landing point, and 4) other matters necessary for the public announcement of the service route

According to Article 3-2(1) of the Notice of Coastal Shipping according to the above delegation, if either of the departure points and landing points is different when a service route is announced in accordance with Article 5-2(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, the service route may be publicly announced as another service route in consideration of the characteristics of the service route and the transportation stability, etc.

B) the facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the absence of dispute between the parties or the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 48 and 52:

(1) According to the public notice of the sea route in force at the time of the public notice and disposition of this case (the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries’s notice S, and enforcement of April 1, 2016), C-D sea route (1) is divided into the sea route (217 km) where C departs from the place of departure to the place of arrival of L port (217 km), and (2) (2) where C starts to the place of departure to the place of departure (218 km).

(2) Since January 5, 2017, the above sea route notice was changed to add a sea route (218 km) to which C departs from a port to a final destination (Notice of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries) (Notice of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries). On May 17, 2017, the sea route (215 km) was added to a sea route from a port to a final destination (Notice of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries).

(3) [The paragraphs and H are located in the Gyeongbuk U, and approximately 4.8 km each other in a straight line as set forth below, and a shore road that connects to almost two straight lines is opened.

A person shall be appointed.

[Guidance] Location of paragraphs (1) and (H)

C) Determination

The above facts and the following circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, i.e., (1) and (H) are located in the same administrative district (U) when based on the basic local governments; (2) the two ports are not located far away from about 4.8km in a straight line; and (3) it is not deemed that a long time would be needed when moving to a motor vehicle using a coastal road along the coast; (4) it is deemed that D residents would choose a motor vehicle without obvious discrimination depending on their own needs and convenience; (5) it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff’s arrival of a route is not possible by distinguishing paragraphs (1) and (H) from the Defendant’s regular passenger transportation service provider’s license from the Defendant on September 6, 2016, when the Plaintiff obtained a scheduled passenger transportation service provider’s license from the Defendant as to the C-D (I) route, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff’s publication of the route to which C-D route was applied as the point of departure, and that it overlaps or is possible with the existing route of H-2).

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3) As to the assertion on the adequacy of the safety management plan

A) The plaintiff's assertion

The Selection Committee set a total point of 55 points (5 points = (8 points x 5) +6 points in the evaluation items of the safety management plan to the intervenors. However, according to the provisions of Article 21-5 of the Marine Transportation Act, the scheduled coastal passenger transportation service provider may appoint a safety management manager to implement the operation management rules and perform the safety management duties of passenger ships (hereinafter referred to as "safety management duties") or entrust the above duties to a safety management agency under Article 51 of the Maritime Safety Act.

However, M is not a person registered as a safety control agency for legitimate regular passenger ships in accordance with the procedures prescribed in Article 51 of the Maritime Safety Act, and M is not a person registered as a safety control agency for regular passenger ships in accordance with the procedures prescribed in Article 51 of the Maritime Safety Act. Therefore, the intervenor

Therefore, the 55 points assigned by the Selection Committee to the intervenors in the above evaluation items should be excluded from all.

B) the facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the absence of dispute between the parties, or the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 22, 34, 40, and Eul evidence Nos. 16 and 25, and the whole purport of arguments:

(1) According to the instant project proposal, the intervenor pursuant to Article 21-5(2) of the Marine Transportation Act.

An annual salary of KRW 66 million shall be paid to a person responsible for safety management who entrusts safety management services to M, who is a safety management agency.

The safety management organization of the Intervenor is as listed below [Attachment 3], and V, a person in charge of safety management, is a M affiliated person, who has completed the safety management responsibility process prescribed by all relevant laws and regulations, and is qualified therefor.

A person shall be appointed.

[Attachment 3] The Intervenor’s Safety Management Organization

(2) On March 1, 2016, the Intervenor entered into a ship management service contract with M on March 1, 2016. According to the above contract, M provides the intervenors with services, including business support for passenger ship operation management rules, such as seafarers’ fraud, ship trading, etc.

(3) According to Eul evidence 16-1 (Registration Certificate of Safety Control Agency), M is registered as a safety control agency for AC (oiler), AD (Chemical Products Transporter), AE (Chemical Products Transporter), AF (Chemical Products Transporter), AG (Chemical Products Transporter), AH (oil Tank), and AI (oil Tanker) vessels as of June 7, 2016.

M was registered as a safety control agency against J on February 27, 2018.

(4) On January 5, 2017, the Intervenor established and implemented a review of the passenger ship operation management rules by the Defendant.

(5) The Selection Committee has participated as an examiner by the Korea Anti-Safety Technology Corporation and two safety experts belonging to the Korea Coast Guard Headquarters in the same year.

C) Determination

(1) According to Article 5 (1) 2 of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 2-2 (1) [Attachment 1] of the Notice of Coastal Shipping 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 (the company and business proposal) is adequate to ensure the safety of marine traffic, and the evaluation criteria are 10 appraised points per examiner. The evaluation criteria are the appropriateness of the passenger ship safety management plan, whether the passenger ship safety management plan is appropriate, whether the employees are in exclusive charge of securing the self-management organization. According to the detailed evaluation criteria of the project proposal announced by the defendant, each examination committee of the Selection Committee can set an evaluation score from 0 to 10 points by directly considering the appropriateness of the passenger ship safety management plan, securing the organization of the company's own safety management, whether the employees are in exclusive charge of the employment of the employees, and the detailed evaluation criteria by field include whether the safety manager, such as safety manager, the number of persons, experience, remuneration, etc.

(2) Meanwhile, according to Article 21-5(1) and (2) of the Marine Transportation Act, a provider of coastal passenger transportation services shall perform safety management duties (1) and, in this case, have a person in charge of safety management to perform the pertinent duties, and (2) may entrust safety management duties to a safety management agency under Article 51 of the Maritime Safety Act.

In addition, according to Article 51(1) and (2), and Article 46(2) and (3) of the Maritime Safety Act, a person who intends to operate a business as an agent for the establishment and implementation of a safety control system by a shipowner (referring to a safety control agency) 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. (2) A person who intends to register a safety control agency shall establish and implement a workplace safety control system under Article 46(2) as a corporation; (3) a shipowner operating a ship engaged in marine passenger transportation services under Article 3 of the Maritime Transportation Act shall establish and implement a safety

In addition, according to Article 47(1)1(f), 2(2), and 47(3)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Maritime Safety Act, a person who intends to register the change of a safety control agency to change a ship acting as a safety control agency shall submit an application for registration of change of a 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 a document proving that the ship he/she intends to act as a safety control agency is a ship to establish and implement a safety control system under Article 46(2) of the Act (Article 1(1)2(b) and (1)1(f).

(3) Comprehensively taking account of the contents of the relevant provisions and the facts acknowledged earlier, and the following circumstances revealed in the instant argument, it is difficult to view that the Intervenor’s total points 55 points granted in the assessment items on the “ Appropriateness of the safety management plan” is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, solely on the ground that the Intervenor entrusted safety management services to M& who did not register the safety management agency for regular coastal passenger vessels pursuant to the Marine Transportation Act and the Maritime Safety Act at the time of the instant examination.

Ultimately, there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion on this part.

(A) Relevant provisions, such as the Marine Transportation Act and the Notice of Coastal Sea Transportation, do not necessarily require that a safety control agency registered in accordance with the Marine Transportation Act and the Maritime Safety Act be entrusted with the safety control service at the time of the examination of the instant case, in granting the examination members of the Selection Committee the points on the evaluation items of the

Therefore, the relevant provisions, such as the Marine Transportation Act, are only one reference matter in the process of examining the evaluation items of the "reasonableness of the safety management plan", and it cannot be an absolute criteria for determining whether an intervenor who is not a maritime passenger transportation business operator (limited to a person who intends to operate the maritime passenger transportation business until he/she reaches his/her office) satisfies the criteria for license or examination prescribed in Article 5 of the Marine Transportation Act, the notification of inland sea transportation in [Attachment 1], and the detailed criteria for evaluating

Therefore, the review members of the Selection Committee may freely review the project proposal in accordance with the criteria set forth in the detailed evaluation criteria for the project proposal, including whether it is possible for each person to appropriately implement the safety management matters required by the Marine Transportation Act or the Maritime Safety Act, and whether the intervenor's self-safety management organization is secured, whether the person in exclusive charge is employed, especially whether the safety manager has secured professional human resources in each field, and the number of persons, qualifications, career, and level of wages.

B. However, according to the project proposal of this case, the intervenor is equipped with the safety management organization of the ship company itself, and is placed with a dedicated staff in charge of safety management at the headquarters C and D headquarters. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the examination committee members of the Selection Committee set a variety of evaluation points from the lowest 6 to the highest 9 points in each of the intervenors constituted an abuse or abuse of prepaid discretion.

C. Furthermore, according to the instant project proposal, the Intervenor is scheduled to designate MV, which is legally qualified as a person in charge of safety management, as the head of the safety management team, and pay an annual salary of KRW 66 million to him/her as remuneration.

On January 6, 2017, the Intervenor established and implemented the operation management rules pursuant to Article 21-5(1) of the Marine Transportation Act, which was before the date of the instant disposition.

In light of these circumstances, the Intervenor had a person in charge of safety management to perform safety management duties under Article 21-5(1) of the Marine Transportation Act at the time of the examination of the instant case.

D. In addition, all the provisions of the Maritime Safety Act on the registration of safety control agency are basically premised on the fact that the shipowner, the truster, is the maritime passenger transport service provider.

In addition, in full view of the contents of Article 47(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Hague Safety Act and the description of No. 16-1 of the evidence, the safety control agency shall register for each individual vessel of the safety control agency.

However, the Intervenor was merely a person who intends to operate the maritime passenger transport service, not a maritime passenger transport service provider, before obtaining a license from the Defendant. Therefore, the Intervenor cannot be said to be a shipowner who operates a vessel engaged in the maritime passenger transport service, who is required to establish and implement the operation management rules required by Article 21-5 of the Marine Transportation Act as of the date of the instant review, and to perform the safe operation of the passenger vessel, or who operates a vessel engaged in the maritime passenger transport service that requires the establishment and implementation of

Ultimately, comprehensively taking account of such various circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Intervenor’s registration of safety control agency against J, the vessel of the Intervenor, should be necessarily registered before the Intervenor becomes a regular passenger transport service provider within the port with a license granted from the Defendant.

E) Rather, M is a company registered as a safety control agency for each individual vessel from May 2013 to the examination date of the instant case. Therefore, even on the examination date of the instant case, it is clear that M satisfies the requirements for registration of safety control agency for the safety control agency under Article 51(2) of the Maritime Safety Act, “a corporation must meet the safety control system for its workplace under Article 46(2).” In addition, M was late, but M was registered as a safety control agency for J on January 27, 2018.

In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that, if a participant becomes a marine passenger transportation service provider with a license granted from the defendant on the examination date of the instant case, M had sufficient qualifications to register a safety control agency for J at any time upon filing an application for registration of change of a vessel for safety control

4) As to the assertion on the assessment items of "the age of the passenger ship"

A) Organization of issues

(1) According to Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Ship Safety Act, “ship” refers to the period after the date when the ship is advanced, and according to the detailed evaluation criteria for the project proposal, the points allocated to each age of the passenger ship are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

* The score difference under one year prior to the age of one shall be one point.

[Attachment 4] According to the facts acknowledged in the list of the class marks of passenger ships and the above '1. Basic Facts', all the examiners of the Selection Committee calculated the age of J ships as of October 31, 2004 on the basis of 11 year based on the date of the instant public notice ( October 19, 2016), and granted 14 points to the intervenors each (i.e., point of 25 points and 11 points).

(2) On the grounds delineated below, the Plaintiff asserts that 12 years’ age should be calculated on the basis of the examination date of this case ( December 2, 2016) and accordingly, 13 points shall be calculated on the basis of the review date of this case, each of the 13 points for the review committee members, respectively.

① Above all, since the age of a passenger vessel is directly connected to the safety of maritime transport, it is necessary to strictly and repair the vessel.

② According to Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Anti-Ship Safety Act, “the age of a vessel” is defined as “the past period from the date when the vessel was advanced” and thus, calculating the age based on the specific examination date is consistent with the contents and purport of the text.

③ Even according to Article 5 (1) 5 of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Rule thereof, it is reasonable to determine whether the age of a passenger ship does not exceed 20 years and meets the license requirements for a marine passenger transport business based on the actual examination date.

④ In particular, in the case of selecting a business operator through a public invitation and the case of selecting a business operator at the request of an individual license without a public invitation, the examination base date of age may not be specified or vary.

⑤ On October 28, 2016, the Incheon Regional Office of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries assessed the order of preference as of the date of examination, and the intervenor also prepared and submitted the instant project proposal to the Defendant on October 28, 2016, and calculated the J’s order as 12 years.

(3) Therefore, this part of the issue is whether the Selection Committee’s calculation and evaluation of the age based on the publication date of this case constitutes unlawful since it exceeded the bounds of discretion or constitutes abuse of discretion, such as violating Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Ship Safety Act.

B) Determination

As examined in the above '3.c. related legal principles, it is discretionary to determine whether the defendant or the Selection Committee set up the criteria for regular coastal passenger transportation services license within the scope prescribed by the relevant regulations or satisfies the criteria.

In light of the following circumstances, the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant or the Selection Committee constitutes a case where the Defendant or the Selection Committee has exceeded the discretionary power in calculating the age based on the date of publication of the instant case or has abused it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(1) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Ship Safety Act provides that the date when the vessel was towed is determined as the time of calculating the age of the vessel, but there is no provision regarding the termination period. Moreover, the evaluation criteria also stipulate only the allocation method of the vessel’s age to the vessel’s age, and there is no separate provision regarding the method of calculating the age of the vessel.

In addition, the above evaluation criteria provide that the defendant shall prepare and evaluate detailed evaluation criteria for matters not prescribed in the evaluation table in consideration of regional characteristics such as sea route conditions.

(2) Therefore, as long as the Defendant’s determination of the standard for determining the age of the J as the date of the instant public announcement is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, such Defendant’s intent should be respected as far as possible.

(3) As a result of the internal review of the criteria for the calculation of the order for the instant review, the Defendant determined that the time of the examination could be somewhat flexible, but that the time of the public announcement of the business operator’s selection could be more impartial than that of the examination in that it is fixed and objective.

In fact, the examination date of this case has been postponed more than the first examination date ( November 15, 2016) scheduled due to the difficulties in organizing the Selection Committee.

Considering these circumstances, if the examination date of this case, as alleged by the plaintiff, is the basis for calculating the order, the defendant may arbitrarily select a date of examination which is unreasonable to certain business operators and unfairly intervene in the examination of the project proposal.

(4) Of course, even if the order is calculated on the basis of the date of the public announcement of this case, it may cause damage to the fairness of the selection of the project implementer.

However, in light of these circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the criteria for determining the age of a vessel are absolutely correct at a certain point, and barring special circumstances, such as the defendant applied different standards to each individual business operator in the selection process of a single business operator, it shall be deemed that the defendant has discretion to the defendant.

(5) In addition, the interpretation of the language and text of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Ship Safety Act should not necessarily be construed as the standard for calculating the age of the vessel solely on the ground that Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Ship Safety Act, as alleged by the Plaintiff, defines the age of the vessel as “the past period

5) As to the assertion on the assessment items of "the securing of the right to use mooring facilities for vessels"

A) The plaintiff's assertion

The contact facilities that the intervenor expressed that they would be used in the paragraph have already been used by the plaintiff and Qua corporation for 24 hours.

However, the Selection Committee, without any reasonable ground, granted 35 points out of the evaluation items of "Securing the right to use mooring facilities of vessels" to the intervenors.

B) the facts of recognition

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the absence of dispute between the parties or the whole purport of Gap evidence Nos. 9, 22, Eul evidence No. 14 and the whole arguments:

(1) According to the detailed evaluation criteria for the project proposal, 10 points for the items to be assessed on vessel mooring facilities and passenger services are assigned to 10 points for each examiner, and 35 points for each examiner are assigned to the items to be assessed on securing the right to use vessel mooring facilities.

In addition, specific matters to be examined and their methods are as follows:

○ Securing the right to use mooring facilities for vessels (5 points) and securing and using a terminal (5 points) terminal (5 points) and securing the structure and size of a plan for securing terminal (5 points) - Other plans for securing convenience facilities for users, etc.

(2) The Intervenor drafted and submitted the instant project proposal to the Defendant with respect to the assessment items of vessel mooring facilities and passenger services as follows:

① C여객선터미널 및 접안시설C여객선터미널 사용계획- 매표소 1개소- 사무실 1층 3개소(매표실, 운영관리부, 회의실, 1층 임원실)- 사무실 2층 1개소(경영지원부/임원실)○ 여객선 부두 이용계획- 여객선 부두규모: 여객선 접안 3척(J, AJ, E 사용)○ 주차장: 여객부두 내 주차장 공동사용○ 이동식 여객승강용 시설 설치· 선박규모에 맞게 통로 양측에 측변, 난간 등 설치완료② 항 여객선터미널 및 접안시설○ 여객선터미널 사용계획- 매표소 1개소| 사무실 2층 2개소(운영관리부, 임원실)○ [항 접안시설(돌제)규모/수심: 길이 85m, 수심 2~6m○ 주차장: 관광객 다수가 대중교통 및 관광버스 이용0 1항 이동식 여객승강용 시설 설치| 선박규모에 맞게 통로 양측에 측변, 난간 등 설치완료※ 첨부 14. D군 (여객선터미널) 사용 협의 공문 1부.첨부 15. D군(접안시설) 사용 협의 공문 1부.H항 여객선터미널 및 접안시설H여객선터미널 사용계획매표소 1개소

The size and depth of the facility in the H H H H Contac: 270m/ depth 2-6mO H H H 11 in length, attached* one copy of the consultation on the use of the port facilities in the port of port and maritime affairs and fisheries office, attached 13. AK D (H port)'s consultation on the use of the port facilities in the port of port and maritime affairs and fisheries office.

(3) According to the above 15.D. D. D. D. D., attached Table 15, the head of D Gun notified the intervenor on October 25, 2016 that "the participant shall be able to use it when the participant is selected as a scheduled coastal passenger transportation service provider in consideration of the operating hours of the passenger wharfs (from October 11 to March 31 of the following year) submitted by the intervenor, where three passenger ships are used for three regular passenger ships of the present 15. D. D. D., D., and D. D. D., attached Table 15. D., and that "the participant shall be able to use it when the participant is selected as a scheduled coastal passenger transportation service provider within the port."

In addition, on December 13, 2016, the D head of the Gun again notified the intervenors that “it is possible to use the AL passenger seat only for the wharf facilities where the AL passenger ship uses the AL passenger seat.”

(4) According to the project proposal of this case, the intervenor shall start from 11:1 of each year from 11 to 31 of the next year from 31:30 of the next year and arrive at C 12:50, and start from C to 8:30 of April 1 of each year and start from C to 11:50 to start from 11:50 and start from C to start from 11:50 of April 1 of each year and start from C to start to 11:50 of the next year. C)

According to the above facts, the Selection Committee may grant an intervenor a uniform evaluation score only at 5 points or 0 points depending on whether the intervenor has obtained the right to use the mooring facilities (5 points each point and 35 points each point) in the assessment items.

In addition, since the intervenor was notified by the head of D Gun that it would be possible to use the vessel mooring facilities at the time of the examination of this case after consultation with the D Gun and the Do Gun regarding the issue of permission to use the vessel mooring facilities, it is reasonable to view that the intervenor secured the right to use the vessel mooring facilities at the time of the examination of this case. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the selection committee's granting 35 points to the intervenor as a total of 35 points per the examiner regarding the evaluation items of this part, it is difficult to view

Therefore, there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion on this part.

6) As to the assertion on the items of assessment regarding the installation of convenient mobility equipment

A) According to the evaluation criteria of the content of the relevant regulations, where convenient mobility equipment under the Act is installed, one examiner may give a total of seven additional points per one.

In addition, pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 7, Articles 9 subparag. 1, 10(1) and (2), 11, 29, and 31 of the Mobility Act, and Articles 11, 12 [Attachment Table 2] of the Enforcement Decree thereof, and Article 2 [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Mobility Disadvantaged Act, “convenient mobility equipment” means equipment 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., such as resting facilities where pregnant women can breast breast oil, and passenger transport facilities or roads; (3) In cases of passenger transport facilities installed on the above ships, ships used for maritime passenger transport service under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Marine Transportation Act shall be installed with signs installed at the destination of the destination of the mobility convenience facilities; and (4) in cases of public toilets for disabled persons, such facilities shall be installed with entrance and exit of the disabled persons only for disabled persons, and the type of entrance and exit of the disabled persons shall be installed.

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 transport business operators, 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, and ② Where a transportation administrative agency grants a license, permission, authorization, etc. for means of transport and passenger facilities, it shall examine whether convenient mobility equipment installed in means of transport and passenger facilities meet the installation standards under Article 10; ③ A transportation administrative agency may issue a corrective order to a transport business operator who fails to install the transportation convenience facilities in a facility subject to installation or fails to maintain and manage convenient mobility equipment in compliance with the installation standards under Article 10, in violation of Article 11 of the Act; and (a person who violates Article 11 of the Act and fails to comply with the corrective order within the said corrective period shall

B) Determination

However, the Intervenor installed a toilet for the disabled from among convenient mobility equipment prescribed by the laws and regulations of the mobility disadvantaged Persons in the J vessel (the oil room is not a convenient mobility equipment of the vessel prescribed by the laws and regulations of the mobility disadvantaged). However, there are no disputes between the parties, or the facts that the toilet door has not been installed as a closed system, are recognized by the statement in Gap evidence 43.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, the intervenor cannot be deemed to have installed convenient mobility equipment under the Act on the Protection of Mobility Disadvantaged Persons in the J vessel. Therefore, it is unlawful for the Selection Committee to grant a total of 6 points to the intervenor under a different premise because it is objectively reasonable or reasonable to view that it is beyond the discretionary power or when it is abused.

Therefore, the intervenor's total points from 569 points to 6 points shall be excluded from the total points received in the examination of this case, and the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

(1) According to the detailed evaluation criteria of the project proposal, where convenient mobility equipment is installed in accordance with the mobility disadvantaged Persons Act, one point and 0 points if not installed.

(2) The laws and regulations on mobility disadvantaged persons are subject to certain sanctions, such as corrective orders or fines, where a transport business entity fails to install convenient mobility equipment prescribed by the laws and regulations or has maintained and managed it in breach of the installation standards.

(3) However, the Intervenor installed only one toilet exclusive for the disabled among convenient mobility equipment, which is stipulated in the laws and regulations of the mobility disadvantaged in the J vessel, and did not install the remaining facilities at all. In addition, the Intervenor installed a toilet exclusive for the disabled, which does not comply with the facility standards stipulated in the laws and regulations of the mobility disadvantaged Act, and maintained and managed it. Therefore, the Intervenor cannot be deemed to have fulfilled the obligation of the transportation businessman stipulated in

(4) Although an intervenor is unable to install convenient mobility equipment in the structure of the J vessel pursuant to Article 2(1) [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Rule of the Mobility Act, the intervenor may install transportation convenience facilities, such as toilets for persons with disabilities, not meeting the facility standards.

However, it is difficult to view that the examiners of the Selection Committee, which can be the grounds for the exemption of various sanctions under the laws and regulations of the mobility disadvantaged persons, are the reasonable grounds for granting additional points in the examination of this case.

E. The legality of the instant disposition

Ultimately, among the plaintiff's assertion, there are only six additional points due to the installation of convenient mobility equipment under the Mobility Disadvantaged Act, and there are no grounds for all of the remainder.

In addition, even if the intervenor excluded the above 6 points from the total point 569 points received in the examination of the case, the average point 80.42 (total 563 points) and met the criteria for the selection of the businessman as set forth in the public notice of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is deemed to have granted a license for marine passenger transportation services to the intervenors within the scope of legitimate exercise of discretionary power, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

4. Conclusion

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

Judges

The presiding judge and the associate judge;

Judge Park Sang-hoon

Judges Kim Gi-su

Note tin

1) Specific contents are examined following each issue.

2) Unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, the aviation route public notice applicable to the instant public notice and disposition is S that was enforced from April 1, 2016 by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.