1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: “Until May 13, 2014” in Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “by May 13, 2015”; “passenger Transport Business Act” in Part 8 shall be read as “passenger Transport Service Act”; and the Plaintiff’s assertion shall be cited as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as stipulated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act to the corresponding part. As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. If the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff changed the bus stop to the “exclusive airport bus stop” from the “exclusive airport bus stop station” to the “exclusive airport bus stop,” as alleged by the Defendant, it cannot be deemed as falling under minor matters stipulated in the proviso of Article 10(1) of the Passenger Transport Act and Article 33(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and thus, it constitutes a case where the Plaintiff changed the business plan without authorization, and thus constitutes a violation of the main sentence of Article 10(1) of the Passenger Transport Act, and thus, Article 88(1) and Article 85(1)12 of the Passenger Transport Act, Article 46(1) [Attachment Table 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 46(1) [Attachment Table 5] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thus, the criteria for imposition of penalty in the event of a violation shall be one million won or more.

Nevertheless, as the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff to have violated Article 4 of the Passenger Transport Act, and calculated the criteria for imposing penalty surcharges at KRW 1.8 million by applying Article 88(1), Article 85(1)6 of the same Act, and Article 46(1) [Attachment 5] 3(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, each of the dispositions in this case must be revoked as unlawful.

B. The judgment is based on the fact that the Plaintiff obtained a transport business license from the Defendant by starting the former common hotel pursuant to Article 4 of the Passenger Transport Service Act, and the Plaintiff, however, also.