(영문) 서울행정법원 2016.10.6.선고 2016구합59010 판결

A. From the 1980s, the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China") designated an area where group tourists are permitted to travel in consultation with the government of each country in order to control foreign tourism. On June 27, 2000, the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "China") introduced a travel permission system (ADS, APvvved Dest Datus) which allows only the travel agencies recommended by the country which entered into an agreement with China to enter into an agreement with China to enter into contact with Chinese group tourists. On May 1998, China designated the Republic of Korea as the "China's Voluntary Tourism State". The defendant, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Construction and Transportation, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation-Related Officers of China, which consists of the representative of the Republic of Korea, and the representative of China, which made up an agreement on various negotiations related to tourism of Chinese group tourists in the Republic of Korea on June 27, 2000>

B. The main contents of the records of this case are as follows.

1) The Chinese side shall have 34 Chinese travel agents, who are licensed, take charge of Korean tourism services, and enter into a collective tourist invitation contract by finding a partnership among the competent and reliable travel agents recommended by the Korean side.

2) The Korean side shall recommend 35 Korean events with credit and with good financial situation and service circumstances as the national tourist travel agency, among those events.

3) 34 travel agencies designated by the Chinese side shall designate full-time personnel to take exclusive charge of the organization tourism visa affairs of the Embassy of the Republic of Korea (consular missions) in the Republic of China, and when those full-time personnel apply for a group tourism visa to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea (consular missions) in the Republic of Korea, the agency will provide convenience and issue the visa as soon as possible, unless there

C. In July 1998, the Defendant enacted the Guidelines for the Implementation of the Exclusive Tour Business for Attraction of Tourist Operators (hereinafter referred to as the “Guidelines”) in order to implement the designation, management, etc. of the 'Specialized Tour Operators' recommended to China in accordance with the Round of this case.

D. The Plaintiff established and operated B events on May 13, 2005, and on November 14, 2006, the Plaintiff was designated as a exclusive travel agent from the Defendant, and was in charge of Chinese organization tourists’ domestic travel business.

E. In May 2013, the Defendant revised the instant guidelines by newly establishing Article 3-2 of the instant guidelines, and subsequently introduced a "exclusive travel agent renewal system" to the travel agent whose designation period has expired by two years, and accordingly, introduced a "exclusive travel agent renewal system" to the travel agent whose designation period has expired by reexamination.

F. On September 1, 2013, the Defendant conducted a re-examination on 143 exclusive tour operators with the exception of business entities with a designated period of less than two years among the 179 exclusive tour operators, and decided to revoke the designation of 22 business entities among them, and notified the designated business entities with prior notice and hearing procedures, and notified the relevant facts on December 5, 2013.

G. On December 24, 2015, the Defendant evaluated the performance from January 2014 to October 2015, and sent a letter to request the re-designation of 170 exclusive tour operators to submit relevant data. On March 23, 2016, the Defendant held a Committee for Management of Exclusive Tour Workers to hold a meeting of the Committee for Management of dedicated Tour and issued a letter to request the re-designation of 68 exclusive tour operators according to the criteria for revocation of designation, even if 70 points or more are less than 6 points due to administrative disposition (unqualified, etc.).

H. On March 28, 2016, the Defendant revoked the designation of exclusive tourers with respect to the Plaintiff on the ground that the evaluation scores for the two-year evaluation results of the Plaintiff are less than 63 points and less than 70 points as indicated below (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

A person shall be appointed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7, 11, 12, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1 to 9, Eul evidence 4-1 to 5-11, Eul evidence 24-1 and 24-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The purport of the plaintiff's assertion

1) Violation of the principle of statutory reservation

The instant disposition revoking the designation of the exclusive travel agent against the Plaintiff is based on the instant guidelines, which are only the internal guidelines of the administrative agency, and does not have any legal basis. Therefore, it is unlawful in violation of the principle of statutory reservation.

2) A deviation from or abuse of discretionary power

In the evaluation of financial soundness, the defendant used the previous debt ratio and operating income as an evaluation index, and the amount of capital and sales in the disposition of this case are the evaluation index. Since it was difficult for the plaintiff to predict the change in the evaluation index, this is contrary to the plaintiff's trust, and since the amount of capital and sales is not a reasonable index in the evaluation of financial soundness of the plaintiff, who is an individual company, it constitutes arbitrary evaluation criteria. In addition, in the evaluation of price adequacy, the defendant calculated the unit price for foreign currency transactions per person for tourists based only on cash sales generated at the time, but the actual foreign currency transaction amount is larger than the actual foreign currency transaction amount. Thus, this part of the evaluation is unreasonable.

As such, the defendant's evaluation method is unfair, while the plaintiff has contributed to attracting large-scale Chinese tourists, etc., in spite of considerable degree of contribution to attracting Chinese tourists, the designation of exclusive tourers is revoked for the reason that it is insufficient to meet the evaluation standards without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to correct it, and thus, it is not possible to recruit and attract Chinese tourists. Thus, the disposition of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of discretionary authority.

B. Details of the instant guidelines

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether it violates the principle of statutory reservation

A) Legal nature of the act of designating exclusive tourmen

The term "administrative disposition", which is the object of an appeal litigation, refers to, in principle, an act of an administrative agency's public law, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the general public by ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or giving rise to other legal effects, with regard to a specific matter under the laws and regulations. However, even if the grounds for a certain disposition are stipulated in the administrative rules, if the disposition directly affects the rights and obligations of the other party by ordering the other party to establish rights or the burden of obligations, or causing other legal effects, it constitutes an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du3532, Jul. 26, 2002; 2004; 2003Du10251, Nov. 26, 200).

The designation of exclusive tourers would be based on the instant non-uses and the instant guidelines corresponding to the administrative rules. However, the Defendant entered into the instant non-uses with China, following which the non-uses of this case were followed.

In other words, domestic travel agencies designated as exclusive travel agents in accordance with the Chinese travel permission system are prohibited from attracting Chinese group tourists, and only domestic travel agencies designated as exclusive travel agents and recommended in China can enter into a recruitment contract with Chinese group tourists. The designation of exclusive travel agencies is an administrative disposition that creates the legal effect of establishing the right to enter into a contract with Chinese group tourists, which is subject to appeal litigation, and such designation of exclusive travel agencies is basically a creation of a certain right or status and constitutes a beneficial administrative act.

B) The principle of statutory reservation and the principle of parliamentary reservation that a formal legal basis established by the National Assembly is required for the designation system of exclusive travel agents and the effective administrative action of the instant guidelines, not merely if administrative action is based on the legal basis, but also requires the State community and its members to decide on its essential matters, in particular, not for the area pertaining to the realization of the fundamental rights of the people, but for the nation’s community and its members. However, it is difficult to uniformly define what matters to be regulated by the legislators cannot be determined, and only can it be determined individually in consideration of the importance of benefits or values related to a specific case, the degree and method of regulation or infringement, etc. Provided, That when restricting the freedom or rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution at least, the legislators on the essential matters of the restriction must self-regulation by law (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2015Hun-Ba125, Jun. 30, 2016).

Therefore, the defendant's exclusive travel agent designation system and the guidelines of this case are contrary to the principle of statutory reservation and parliamentary reservation. ① According to the Framework Act on Tourism, the government shall devise basic and comprehensive policies on tourism promotion (Article 2). The government shall take legislative and financial measures and other necessary administrative measures to implement such policies (Article 5). (Article 5) In addition, the government shall strengthen overseas public relations, improve entry and departure procedures and take other necessary measures to promote the attraction of foreign tourists (Article 7), and also shall guide and supervise the tourism business and take other necessary measures (Article 10). The defendant is a competent authority that is obligated to take various measures and measures related to tourism as prescribed by the Framework Act on Tourism to promote the attraction of Chinese collective tourists.

6. The fact that the government of the Republic of Korea and the government of the Republic of Korea entered into this case's non-permanent tour agreements to implement the matters stipulated in this case's agreement, and the defendant designated an exclusive tour event after which the government of the Republic of Korea prepared the guidelines of this case to implement the travel business. ② The fact that the domestic travel company cannot attract Chinese organizations free tour in principle is adopting the permission system for overseas tour only for the country to which the agreement was entered into, and the legislation of the Republic of Korea adopts the permission system for attracting Chinese organizations tourism. Thus, the designation of exclusive tour company itself does not restrict the freedom of occupation or freedom of business to the people who operate or intend to operate the travel business. ③ The designation of exclusive tour company merely gives the designated domestic travel company the right or status to enter into the travel contract, and it does not violate the law's basic duty to ensure that the exclusive tour company's designation of exclusive tour company is not allowed to support the other party's act of benefit and discretion, and it does not violate the law's basic duty to restrict the designation of exclusive tour company.

C) If there is no legal basis for the revocation of the designation of the exclusive travel agent, the disposition agency, which conducted an administrative act as to whether it is impossible to cancel the designation of the exclusive travel agent, may, even if there was no particular defect at the time of the disposition, and even if there was no separate legal basis for the withdrawal after the disposition, withdraw it by a separate administrative act which would lose its validity where there was a change in circumstances where it is no longer necessary to continue the original disposition, or where it is necessary for the important public interest. However, in the case of cancellation or

Even if there are grounds for revocation, etc., the exercise of the right of revocation, etc. shall be determined by comparing and comparing the disadvantages suffered by the other party only when it is necessary for the important public interest to justify the infringement of the right of vested interests or when it is necessary to protect the interests of a third party. In a case where the disadvantages, etc. suffered by the other party are enormous than necessary for the public interest due to such disposition, the exercise of the right of revocation, etc. itself is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Du7606, Jul. 22, 2004; 2003Du10251, Nov. 26, 2004).

The disposition of this case is a withdrawal of the act of designating the plaintiff as the exclusive travel agent but loses its validity according to the circumstances that occurred after the designation. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the defendant did not have any legal grounds in designating the plaintiff as the exclusive travel agent, the disposition of this case cannot be viewed as unlawful merely on the ground that the defendant did not have any legal grounds in making a decision to withdraw it.

D) Sub-committee

Therefore, the disposition of this case is not illegal because it violates the principle of statutory reservation, and the plaintiff's assertion on this part is not accepted.

2) Whether the discretion is deviates or abused

앞서 본 바와 같이 수익적 행정처분을 취소 또는 철회하는 경우 공익상의 필요와 상대방이 받는 불이익을 비교·교량하여야 하고, 공익상 필요에 비하여 상대방이 받는 불이익이 심히 중한 경우에는 재량권의 한계를 일탈한 것으로 위법하다.이 사건에서 보건대, 앞서 든 증거 및 을 제7호증의 1, 2, 을 제8호증의 1 내지 3,을 제9호증의 1 내지 3, 을 제10호증의 1 내지 3, 을 제11호증의 1 내지 3, 을 제12호증의 1 내지 3, 을 제13호증의 1 내지 3, 을 제14 내지 17호증, 을 제18호증의 1, 2,을 제19호증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 전담여행사 제도는 중국인의 한국 단체 관광을 건전하고 질서있게 추진하여 한·중 우호협력관계를 돈독히 하고 양국의 관광발전을 촉진하기 위한 목적에서 이 사건 비망록 및 이 사건 지침에 근거하여 운영되는 것이고, 전담여행사 갱신제는 전담여행사의 자격을 일정 수준 이상으로 유지, 관리하기 위한 행정목적에서 시행되는 것으로 그 목적과 수단의 정당성이 인정되는 점, ② 전담여행사 지정은 피고로부터 일정 기간 권리나 지위를 부여받는 수익적 행정행위에 해당하는 것인바, 피고가 그 지위 유지에 필요한 일정 자격을 요구하는 평가기준을 마련한 다음 일정 기간의 실적을 심사하여 그 평가기준에 미달하는 업체에 대하여 그 권리나 지위를 박탈하는 갱신제를 운영하는 것은 그 평가기준이 심히 불합리하거나 부당하다고 볼 만한 사정이 없는 한 허용된다고 봄이 상당한 점, ③ 전담여행사 지정 및 갱신제도의 목적, 성격 등에 비추어 피고가 갱신제를 운영하기 위한 전제로 2년간의 실적을 심사평가하는 데에 있어서 상당한 평가재량을 가진다고 볼 수 있는 점, ④ 피고는 2013년에 처음으로 갱신제를 시행하면서 평가기준을 이미 밝힌 바 있으며, 이 사건 처분의 전제가 된 갱신제 평가기준은 '전자관리시스템 참여정도' 등 일부 평가항목이 추가되고 가격합리성의 평가지표가 종전 '상품대비 가격 합리성 여부'에서 '1인당 유치단가 평가'로 변경되는 등 일부 평가지표 및 배점이 변경된 것 외에 종전 평가기준과 대동소이한 점, ⑤ 피고는 원고를 비롯한 전담여행사로 지정된 업체들에 대하여 2014년 1월부터 2015년 10월까지의 실적을 전자관리시스템에 입력할 것을 요청하면서 이를 갱신제 평가에 활용하겠다는 내용을 사전 고지한 바 있고, 갱신제 평가항목과 평가지표에 반영되는 업체 준수사항을 설명회 등을 통해 여러 차례 안내하였는바, 원고가 예측할 수 없는 불이익을 입었다고 보기 어려운 점, ⑥ 재정건전성의 요건으로 업체의 자본금과 매출액 규모를 설정한 것은 불합리한 평가지표를 정한 것이라고 보기 어렵고, 자본금과 매출액의 규모가 지나치게 작은 영세업체의 경우 날이 갈수록 증가하여 가는 중국관광객 모집, 유치활동을 안정적이고 원활하게 수행하지 못할 염려가 있어 그 목적과 수단의 정당성이 인정될 뿐 아니라 자본금 및 매출액의 규모에 대한 구체적인 평가기준[자본금 : 2억 원 미만 5점, 2억 원 이상 10점, 매출액(업체 평균 54억 원) : 55억 원 이상 5점, 35억 원 이상 55억 원 미만 4점, 15억 원 이상 35억 원 미만 3점, 15억 원 미만 2점] 역시 부당하다고는 보이지 않는 점, ⑦ 가격 합리성의 평가지표로 1인당 유치단가(외화소득)를 평가하는 것은 여행사에서 중국단체관광객 1인당 유치금액을 과소하게 책정함에 따라 그 손실분을 과도한 쇼핑 수수료로 메우는 기형적인 관광형태가 만연함에 따라 이를 방지하기 위해 도입된 것으로 그 목적과 수단의 정당성이 인정되는 점, ⑧ 원고의 주장에 의하더라도, 원고의 현금 매출에 미수금 매출을 합한 2015년도 관광객 1인당 외 화거래액 유치단가가 최대 25달러, 즉 약 25,000원이라는 것인바(2016. 8. 17.자 준비서면 제12면), 피고가 제출한 갱신제 평가기준에 의하면 1인당 유치단가가 50,000원 미만의 경우 평가점수가 2점으로 이 사건 처분에 있어 해당 항목의 평가점수와 다름이 없는 점, ④ 원고는 이 사건 처분으로 인하여 중국관광객 등을 상대로 한 전담여행사로서 영업하는 것이 제한되지만, 일반적인 여행사 업무를 수행함에 있어서는 아무런 제한을 받지 않는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 전담여행사 제도를 건전하고 질서 있게 운영하여야 할 공익상 필요가 이 사건 처분으로 인하여 원고가 입게 되는 불이익에 비하여 더 크다고 봄이 상당하므로, 이 사건 처분에 재량권을 일탈·남용한 위법이 있다고 보기는 어렵다.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

3. Conclusion

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