(영문) 광주고등법원 전주재판부 2020.1.8. 선고 2018누2068 판결

On October 6, 2015, the defendant confirmed that there is no permission for change of passenger transport business plan issued by the defendant to the corporation B on October 6, 2015, and the defendant revoked the approval for change of passenger transport business plan issued by the limited company C on October 6, 2015.

Preliminaryly, on October 6, 2015, the Defendant’s approval disposition of modification to each passenger transport business plan against B and limited company C shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 12, 1996, the Plaintiff is a passenger transport business operator who commenced the transportation of airport buses after obtaining a limited license for inter-city bus transport business from the Defendant, which read, “the scope of business is limited to passengers (a contractor using an airport of an overseas travel enterprise)” (a contractor using an airport of an overseas travel enterprise) and the validity period is limited to the inter-city bus transport business from December 12, 1996 to December 11, 1999 (3 years).

B. On September 30, 1999, the Plaintiff obtained a limited license for cross-country bus transportation business (hereinafter “instant limited license”) from the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) the period of validity of the said limited license expires; and (b) the period of validity of the said limited license from December 12, 1999 to the point of time.

C. On July 18, 2000, the Plaintiff obtained the authorization for modification of the business plan that extends the closing point of the above route to the Incheon International Airport from the defendant Kimpo Airport from the Kimpo Airport to the Incheon International Airport, and operated the route of 24 times a day from the Jeonju-Yan International Airport to the Ganpo Airport from the Ganpo Airport to the Ganpo Airport, and the route of 'Yju-Yancheon International Airport' to the 3 times a day.

D. The Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Intervenor B”), the Intervenor B, the Intervenor B, and the Defendant’s limited liability company C, the Intervenor C, obtained a license for direct operation cross-city bus transport business from the Defendant, which operates the route of the 'Y-Seoul Southern Terminal,’ from the Defendant. On February 1, 2005, the program plan was amended to the route of the 'Y-Seoul-Seoul-Seoul-west Terminal.’ On February 3, 2015, the Defendant’s corrective order disposition was issued on nine occasions a day from the front week to the Southern-west Terminal, respectively.

E. On October 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) operated six times a day from the time room to the time zone from the time zone to the time zone from the time zone to the time zone; (b) revised the business plan to the time zone from the time zone to the time zone to the time zone; and (c) revised the business plan to the time zone to the time zone to the time zone to the time zone to the time zone to the time zone to the time zone to the time zone to the time zone (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, 15, and 20 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is as follows: (a) No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance and No. 15 of the reasoning of the judgment; (b) the plaintiff can transport only the passengers who intend to use the Incheon Airport for overseas travel; (c) the intervenors recognize the fact that there is no restriction on the passenger's use of the Incheon Airport; and (d) the intervenors recognize the fact that there is no restriction on the operation system; and (e) except for adding the following items to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the

B. Additional parts

1) The Intervenor’s defense of this safety

At the time of the instant limited license disposition, the relevant statutes limited the term of validity of limited license for passenger transport business to a maximum of three years. Nevertheless, the instant limited license disposition was unlimited against this, which constitutes a case where the defect is obvious and invalid, and thus, the Plaintiff, a non-licensed trucking business operator, has no standing to sue the instant disposition.

2) Determination

Article 5(3) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act, which was in force as of September 30, 1999 when the limited license was issued, provides that when the Minister of Construction and Transportation deems it necessary for granting a passenger transport business license, he may grant a license only for the scope or the period of operation of passengers to be transported under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. Article 15 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 223, Dec. 16, 199; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that “(i) the period of the limited license under Article 5(3) of the Act shall not exceed 3 years.”

As such, at the time of the instant limited license disposition, the relevant laws and subordinate statutes limited the limited license period for passenger passenger transport business operating a specific route to three years (if a limited license does not specify the scope and the period of business, the license period will be three years), and if the existing license period expires, a new limited license holder shall be selected through an open method, but if there is no inappropriate matters for local residents' convenience, the previous limited license holder shall be given a preferential opportunity to renew the license (as the Enforcement Rule of the former Passenger Transport Service Act was amended by Ordinance No. 223 of December 16, 199, the contents of the above preferential right were deleted).

Nevertheless, the instant limited license disposition was made with indefinite license period in violation of Article 15(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, and the instant limited license disposition seems to be defective in violation of the relevant statutes.

However, the following circumstances recognized by the overall purport of evidence Nos. 38, 20 through 26, namely, ① Operational Guidelines for the Restricted License System for Airport Bus Transport Business (No. 1029) issued on October 5, 1994, were the provisions that “the competent authorities need not limit the license period for the continuous operation of airport bus transport business” (Article 4(2)3, and the above Operational Guidelines was abolished on January 16, 2001). ② The Defendant received a reply from the head of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation and the head of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation around September 29, 199 that “the limited license for passenger transport business can be granted only to the scope of business, and at this time, it is difficult to view that there is any apparent defect that the limited license is still terminated after the expiration of the pertinent Act and subordinate statutes.”

Ultimately, the Intervenor’s defense of safety based on the premise that the instant limited licence disposition is null and void due to a serious defect is without merit.

3. Judgment as to the plaintiff's primary claim for confirmation of non-existence

The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

4. Judgment on the remaining claims of the Plaintiff

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The illegality of the instant disposition in accordance with the modified disposition of February 1, 2005

On February 1, 2005, the Defendant had the authority to approve the business plan by changing the Intervenor’s ‘Yank Seoul Southern Terminal’ to the ‘mar' route from the former to the former from the aftermath of Seoul. At the time, the authority to approve the change of the business plan was not the Defendant but the Minister of Construction and Transportation. Accordingly, the above modification is illegal by an unauthorized person, and the Defendant’s disposition of this case is also unlawful.

2) The illegality of the instant disposition regarding the route from the time to the time from the time to the time to the time from the time to the time to the time to which

A) Illegal which permits the establishment of a route by modifying the project plan;

The intervenors filed an application for the modification of the project plan on the grounds that the operation of the 9-day route from time to time from time to time to time to time to time to time to time from time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time from time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time by the operation of the 6-day route from time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time from time to time to time to time, respectively, and the Defendant made the instant disposition to authorize the Defendant.However, it cannot be said that the Intervenor permitted the operation of the 9-day international airport from time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to time to

B) in violation of Guidelines for Licensing Business Handling of Passenger Transport Service on the establishment of routes

Article 7 Subparag. 1 of the Guidelines for Licensing Business which is a passenger transport business (amended by Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport Directive No. 614, Nov. 30, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall follow the points converted according to the allocation rate, such as the route altitude, altitude, performance of instructions, etc., of the newly established operation system, and the allocation of the frequency of operations shall be the number of times calculated in accordance with the formula prescribed in the said provision. Nevertheless, the Defendant issued the instant disposition without calculating the conversion points for each participant or without calculating the frequency of operations. Thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

C) Violation of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act concerning the extension of routes

Article 32(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides that the length of extension of a route and operation system shall not exceed 50% of the existing operation system. However, given that the distance of “electric week to Incheon International Airport,” which is an extension route, is about 87% when based on the distance from the 'grasty room to the front week from the southwest to the Seoul Southern Terminal, which is the existing route of the intervenors, is 87%, the instant disposition is unlawful in violation of the aforementioned provision.

(d) duplicate disposition in respect of the same route;

On August 12, 2013, the Defendant changed the route of 4 times from 2013 to 4 times a day respectively for the intervenors from 2013 to 3 times a day respectively for the operation of 'Military Airport from 2000 to 3 times a day from 2013 to from 2010 to 3 times a day respectively for the operation of 'Military Airport from 2000 to 3 times a day from 2000 to 201. In the instant disposition, the part of 'international Airport from 2013 to 2013' is a disposition impossible for the implementation of the instant disposition since the part of 'international Airport from 2013 to 2013 was overlapped with the authorization disposition for the same route.

(e)the deviation and abuse of discretionary power on the permission of duplicate routes;

Under the judgment that it is difficult for the Defendant to operate a regular route bus on the route from the point of ‘Neju to the Incheon International Airport' due to the indicability of demand, etc., the instant limited license was issued to resolve the inconvenience of the passengers. This is not entirely intended for the Plaintiff’s private interests, and thus, the Plaintiff has priority to the above route compared to the general transport business entity. Therefore, there are special circumstances, such as that the Defendant is unable to cope with the increased transport demand by the Plaintiff’s transport capacity to allow the operation of the route to the general transport business entity, or that the Plaintiff is causing damage to local residents by using the exclusive status of the above route. However, even if the buses currently operated by the Plaintiff meet the transport demand for the air route from the city to the Incheon International Airport, even if it fails to do so, the Defendant allowed the Intervenor to operate the route in this case by increasing the transport demand for the air route, and even if the disposition in this case was revoked, the Defendant should be deemed to have abused the discretionary power by the judgment of the case.

3) The illegality of the instant disposition regarding the route from the front week to the south of Korea to the Seoul Southern Terminal

A) Violation of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act to reduce the frequency of operation

Article 32(2)6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act and Article 33(1)3(a) of the Enforcement Rule provide that where the number of operations exceeding 10% per annum or the number of operations decreases over two or more Cities/Dos, the cross-country bus transport business entities or the competent authorities should investigate the transport demand, etc. for the operation system concerned. The instant disposition reduces about 30% of the existing routes of the intervenors from the 9th day to the 1st day from the south-west to the Seoul Southern-west Terminal, respectively. Nevertheless, the Defendant issued the instant disposition without investigating the transport demand, etc., and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B) in violation of the Guidelines for Licensing and Business Handling of Passenger Transport Service on the division of operations systems

According to Article 7 subparagraph 3 (b) of the Guidelines for Handling Passenger Transport Service Personnel and License Affairs, division and reduction of the operating system shall be limited to the extent that it can promote transportation convenience for users. The instant disposition is unlawful since the number of flights on the route from the front week to the southwest-Seoul Terminal has decreased, and the number of flights on the route from the front week to the front city has decreased, thereby reducing the transportation convenience of passengers in the front city.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 shall be as shown in attached Table 2.

C. Determination

1) As to the allegation of illegality of the instant disposition in accordance with the modified disposition on February 1, 2005

Article 3 of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 8980 of Mar. 21, 2008) classify passenger transport service into route passenger transport service, area passenger transport service, etc.; Article 3 subparagraph 1 (d) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18996 of Aug. 5, 2005) classify cross-city bus transport service, among route passenger transport service, into express bus transport service and straight-distance bus transport service; Article 8 (5) 1 and 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 310 of Nov. 15, 2010); Article 8 (5) 1 and 2 of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18980 of Mar. 21, 2008); Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act,

Examining the above facts in light of the contents of the above statutes, it seems that the Intervenor’s route of the Seoul Southern Terminal constitutes a high speed cross-city bus transport business. On February 1, 2005, the route of the 'permanent office' operated with the approval of the modification of the business plan on February 1, 2005 is close to a high speed cross-city bus transport business rather than a direct intercity bus transport business. Therefore, there is room to deem that the Intervenor’s obtaining the said license and the approval of the modification of the business plan from the Defendant who is not the Minister of Construction and Transportation is illegal.

On November 15, 2010, Article 8 (5) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 310) prior to the amendment of the operation behavior of cross-city bus transport business, Article 8 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter referred to as the "amended Enforcement Rule") revised the license for non-city bus transport business to "a type of operation while stopping in a bus at a bus stop on the basis of 50 kilometers of the operation distance using cross-city bus under subparagraph 2 (c) of attached Table 1" to "a type of operation while stopping in at least one stop located in other administrative districts than the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Metropolitan City, or Si/Gun with a starting point or a ending point using cross-city bus under subparagraph 2 (c) of attached Table 1. The amendment made it possible to separately change the license for non-city bus transport business from the operator of cross-city bus transport business to the end of 10km bus transport business.

In the case of intervenors, even if the Mayor/Do Governor issued a disposition in fact with respect to high-speed bus transport business, and it is illegal, the Intervenor’s modification of the business plan from November 15, 201 to Seoul Southern Terminal pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda of the amended Enforcement Rule constitutes a stop at one or more stops located in other administrative districts, not in the form of direct-type bus transport business, or the administrative district, but in the form of the direct-type bus transport business under Article 8(5)2 of the amended Enforcement Rule. In light of the purport of Article 8(5)2 of the amended Enforcement Rule and Article 3 of the Addenda of the amended Enforcement Rule, the Intervenor’s modification of the business plan should be legally permitted by the Defendant for the modification of the business plan from the front to the front to the Seoul Southern Terminal Terminal. In light of the purport of Article 8(5)2 of the amended Enforcement Rule and Article 3 of the Addenda of the amended Enforcement Rule, the Intervenor’s modification of the business plan should not be deemed to have been duly permitted by Article 215 of the amended Enforcement Rule 10.

In accordance with the amendment of related Acts and subordinate statutes, so long as the change of the business plan of the route between the 2010's office and the 2010's office for the intervenors, the change of the business plan of the 2010's office for the intervenors is legitimate (Therefore, it cannot be said that the illegal disposition is maintained simply even after the enforcement of the amended Enforcement Rule because the revocation of the authority is restricted or the cancellation of the litigation is not made on February 1, 2005, issued without authority by the Mayor/Do Governor). Accordingly, if the defendant added the 200's office for the intervenors to the intermediate dwelling, the 2005's order for improvement as of February 3, 2015 or the instant disposition as of October 6, 2015 should be deemed to be based on legitimate authority.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that there is a defect that the disposition of this case is a non-authorized disposition is without merit.

2) As to the allegation of illegality of the instant disposition regarding the route from 200 to 3000 Incheon International Airport

A) Whether there is an error of allowing new installation of a route by modifying a business plan

The instant disposition is a combination of the Intervenor’s previous route from 9:0 to 9:00 to 6:00 each day, i.e., from 200 to 3:00 to 200, i.e., six times a day-time route from 200 to 3 times a day-time route from 3:00 to 200, respectively. This is a combination of the division of routes (one existing route and operation system is divided into more than 2 routes and operation system) and reduction extension (a part of the existing route and operation system is abolished, or a part of the operation route is reduced by reducing the operation frequency, and then the operation route is changed from the reduced point to 200 to 3 times a day.

However, insofar as the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 14716, Mar. 21, 2017) does not restrict the frequency or period of modification of the business plan, it is also possible to apply for the modification of several matters concerning the modification of the business plan simultaneously or annually, insofar as it does not fall under the grounds for restriction on the modification of the business plan under Article 10(3) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du10512, Jun. 12, 2010). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit that the route of the Intervenor’s 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's from

B) Whether there is a violation of the Guidelines for Licensing Affairs of Passenger Transport Service on the establishment of routes

The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is premised on the premise that the Intervenor’s application for the change of the business plan concerning the air route from the front to the front line constitutes “the time when two or more companies apply for the operation system to be newly established.” The above application and the instant disposition are not about the establishment of the route (operation system) but about the division and the extension of the existing route. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit without the need for further review.

C) Whether there exists a violation of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act concerning the extension of routes

Article 32 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act provides that the extension distance of a route and operation system shall not exceed 50% of the existing operation system, and Article 7 (2) 2 (b) of the Guidelines for Handling Passenger Transport Service Personnel and License Affairs provides that the extension of a reduced period shall be calculated from the reduced operation system to the reduced point of final extension.

In this case, where the routes from the existing 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding international airport' or the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding point' to the 'gresponding international airport

In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the starting point of reduction ought to be a stop, the straight line without an intermediate stop is always prohibited from extending the reduction, and even in the vicinity of the existing stop and new stop, it is reasonable to determine whether the entire length of the existing operation system should be extended to a distance from the point of quarter and the final extension of the route to the final extension of the existing international airport, in full view of the following: (a) the purpose of restricting the extension distance under Article 32(2)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act is to ensure that the length of the route is not excessively extended or actually established through the extension of the route; (b) there is no reasonable ground to deem that the starting point of reduction ought to be a stop; and (c) the straight line without an intermediate stop may always be an unreasonable result prohibited from extending the reduction according to the distance between the final stop and the said starting point.

In full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, the length of “JC-Seoul Southern Terminal from that of the front line to that of the front line,” which is approximately approximately 234.8 km, and the length of “WC- Incheon International Airport” can be recognized as having approximately approximately 72 cm. Thus, the extension distance of the changed route constitutes approximately 31% (=72 km: 234.8km x 100) whose length is not more than 50% based on the existing operation system. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

D) Whether the same route constitutes a double-disposition

According to Gap evidence No. 21, the authorization disposition for 2013 is recognized as having already lost its validity after the revocation of the relevant lawsuit (the Jeonju District Court Decision 2014Guhap875 decided April 15, 2015, the Gwangju High Court Decision 2015Nu399 decided September 21, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2015Du53824 Decided April 26, 2018). Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

E) Whether there is deviation from and abuse of discretionary power on permission for duplicate routes

(1) Relevant legal principles

Where an administrative agency intends to grant permission to a new business entity for the establishment, etc. of a route overlapping with a route already operated by an existing business entity, it shall take into account the private interest aspect of the existing business entity, such as adjustment of interests among the relevant transport business entity, in addition to the public interest to be achieved therefrom. In particular, in cases where an existing business entity with respect to the relevant route is a transport business entity who has obtained a limited license, it is not legally guaranteed the preferential right or exclusive right to operate the relevant route on the ground that the existing business entity has obtained the limited license, but a limited license authority can recognize a certain expectation profit with respect to stable business operation corresponding to the degree of contribution to the public interest by taking the risk of business early, and operating the relevant route. As such, the determination of whether to grant the limited license should be made by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) the process and purpose of acquisition of the limited license; (b) details of the limited license; (c) the increase or decrease in demand for the relevant route; (d) the period of operation of the relevant route; (d) the anticipated interest of the limited license holder; and (e) the degree of contribution to the public interest of the limited license authority.

(2) Determination

Examining the following circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, even if considering the Plaintiff’s expectation interest, etc. due to the instant limited license disposition, it is difficult to deem that the instant disposition was a defect that deviates from or abused the discretionary power, even if considering the Plaintiff’s expectation interest, etc. due to the instant limited license disposition, etc.

(A) On November 1, 1996, the Plaintiff applied for a limited license to the Defendant on the grounds that there is a problem of economic loss and congestion due to the actual situation in which each charter bus was mobilized for each overseas travelr and transported foreign tourists to Kimpo Airport. Accordingly, it is necessary to resolve this problem and provide foreign tourists with means of transportation to contribute to the development of the Jeollabuk-do tourism. In addition, the Defendant applied for a limited license to the Defendant only as 'international users of travel enterprises' and 'foreigners'. On December 12, 1996, the Defendant limited the scope of the license to the Plaintiff to 'international airport users' and 'foreigners'. The Defendant limited the license to 'foreign travel enterprises' within 3 years.

(B) Details of the instant limited license

The limited license of this case was renewed for a period of three years, and the scope of the business was limited to the transportation of the ‘contractor for airport use of the ‘overseas travel enterprise's route from the ‘Kiman Airport' as above, but the license period was changed without limitation, i.e., ‘Continuance'.

However, after about 10 months, the Plaintiff obtained the authorization for the modification of the business plan that extends the end point of the above route from the Defendant to the Incheon International Airport, and operated the route from the Jeju to the Kimpo Airport to the Kimpo Airport, and the route from the Jeonju to the Incheon International Airport. In addition, not only the “contractor using the airport of an overseas travel enterprise” but also the “contractor using the airport from the Jeonju, Kimpo Airport, the Incheon International Airport, and the Ypo Airport, and the Ypo Airport and the Incheon International Airport to the express bus.

(C) The number of issuance of a passport issued by the former Do residents at the time of 1997, which was 41,106 cases before and after the Plaintiff acquired the instant limited license, but accumulated by 2013 was 941,217 cases, and according to the "survey and Research on Air Demand Review in the North Korean region by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs", the number of overseas travelers of Jeollabuk-do was presumed to be 602,123, 2010, 817,362. In other words, the number of issuance of a passport issued by Jeollabuk-do, which can be viewed as potential consumers of airport buses, increased more than 20 times compared to the time when the Plaintiff acquired the limited license, and it cannot be deemed that it was a temporary increase in demand.

The Plaintiff obtained a limited license for setting the number of passengers at the time of 1996 as 10 times a day. At present, the number of passengers using the Plaintiff’s airport buses is 27 times a day. According to the data submitted by the Plaintiff, in comparison with the number of passengers in 2015, 199,866, 208, 40%, 142,954, and 58%, compared with the number of passengers in 2008, 2009, 126,496, and 126,496, the number of passengers in 209 (see attached Form 1-A(a)), but in light of the above circumstances, the number of passengers using the Plaintiff’s airport buses from 199 to 200, it is evident that there was a significant increase in demand for the bus at the time of the instant disposition in comparison with the demand for the airport buses at the time of the instant limited license disposition.

(D) The Plaintiff, as a limited license holder, operated the route from December 12, 1996 to 24 years, as a limited license holder, from the 1996, from the 24-year period. From July 18, 2000 to the 20-year period, the Plaintiff operated the route from the 196-year period from the 20-year period from the 20-year period. The Plaintiff did not go through the procedures for the renewal of the license under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to the maximum of 3 years or 6-year period after the instant limited license was issued.

(E) The Plaintiff’s expected profit as the Plaintiff’s limited licence holder and the actual profit derived from operation.

From 2008 to 2018, the Plaintiff’s annual minimum transport income is KRW 5.720,700,000 (209), the annual maximum transport income is KRW 10.77 billion (20,000) and the annual maximum transport income is KRW 18,089,00 (2016), and the annual transport income is KRW 9.5 billion from 2015 to 2018.

(See attached Table 1-b)

Plaintiff’s transportation revenue per bus in 2018 KRW 36,220,193 per month (i.e., KRW 9,562,131,00: KRW 22:12 months). This constitutes approximately KRW 14,070,378 per bus of the passenger bus transportation company in Jeollabuk-do and KRW 2.5 times per bus of the passenger bus transportation company in Jeollabuk-do, and even considering the amount of the subsidy received by the said company, it seems that two times or more are considered.

Although the Plaintiff’s salary to the representative director was KRW 75,600,000 in 2008, the amount of KRW 132,000,000 in 2010, KRW 234,000,000 in 2012, KRW 292,50,000 in 2014, KRW 81,128,58 in 2016, KRW 52,000 in 2016, and KRW 481,28,58 in 2016, and KRW 52,000 in 200 in 2018.

The Plaintiff’s total net income from 2008 to 2018 is KRW 5.98,384,000, and the carried-over earned surplus from 2018 as of 2018 is KRW 5.67,971,00. The Plaintiff’s net income was black from 2008 to 2017 (minimum KRW 85,580,000, highest KRW 137,903,000). The Plaintiff’s net income was converted to 13,61,000 won (minimum KRW 13,61,000,000). However, this is not due to the decline of income, but due to the rapid increase in personnel expenses and insurance premiums (the insurance premium in 2015 was KRW 82,000,000, but the insurance premium in 2018 was approximately KRW 400,400).

Although the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff suffered considerable damage by posing the risk of irregular demand and operating a limited license route in the early stage of the business, there is no material about how and how and how the damage was compensated, etc. However, at the time of the instant limited license disposition, the route was 'NusanIC from the point of time to the point of time,' and the scope of passengers was limited to 'a contractor using the airport of an overseas travel enterprise', but the scope of passengers was limited to 'a contractor using the airport of an overseas travel enterprise', but there was a change in the business plan extending the target route after about 10 months, and the scope of passengers was also no de facto restricted. In addition to the increase in the number of overseas tourists and airport users and the amount of the Plaintiff's transport revenue, even if the Plaintiff suffered significant damage due to the demand for supply in the early stage of the business, the damage seems not to have been significant, and it does not seem to have been required for a long time at the time of transfer.

In full view of the above circumstances, it seems that the Plaintiff acquired profits above the profits that could have been expected at the time of the instant limited license disposition, while exclusively operating the route from the 20th anniversary of the instant limited license to the 19th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the 20th anniversary of the instant limited license.

(f) The Plaintiff’s limited license holder, as a public service-based contribution ratio, has been transporting the users while operating a bus between Jeonju/Yansan and Kimpo Airport Incheon International Airport for a more than 20 years. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was in violation of a limited license in the process, caused the Plaintiff’s illegal operation in violation of the limited license, caused inconvenience due to failure to meet transport demand, or caused damage without properly providing services during the course of operation. In this regard, the Plaintiff has contributed to public interest as a limited license holder.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff continued the operation of the above route until the Plaintiff suffered damage or damage, and rather, it is possible to exclude the competitive business with other companies as limited license holders and to exclusively operate the above route.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that a general transport business operator is engaged in transport business with a limited license for the route that the general transport business operator intends not to operate a route bus due to the lack of demand or the unique characteristics of passenger and used bus due to the use of marijuana, remote villages, industrial complexes, schools, etc. as the restricted license holder, which gives notice of the public interest contribution as the restricted license holder.

(G) Comparison and balancing between public and private interests due to the instant disposition

① An area where only one passenger transportation service provider is allowed to operate an airport bus exclusively through a limited license in a Metropolitan City or more is the only area in Jeollabuk-do. It is highly likely that the license term unlimited setting is likely to cause harm, such as degradation of the quality of passenger transportation services due to neglect of investment and service improvement, or unreasonable fare, and collection. ② If the operation of the bus route is discontinued by the participants, the Gun residents should go through the bus operation again from the front line to the Incheon International Airport. As such, there are inconvenience caused by additional hours, distance of operation, additional and transfer of the bus route, and if the participants want to continue to operate the bus route of 0,000-2,000-1,000-1,000-1,000-1,000-1,000-1,000-1,000-2,000-1,000-2,000-2,000-1,000-2,000-2,000.

On the other hand, the disposition of this case causes the Plaintiff to lose the exclusive status that the Plaintiff had enjoyed as a limited license holder, and accordingly, the decrease in the transportation revenue is expected to infringe upon the Plaintiff’s private interest due to the disposition of this case.

However, even if the plaintiff's disposal of the plaintiff's 1-6-6-6-6-4-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-4-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-4-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-8-2-4-2-8-2-8-2-4-2-8-2-8-2-3-4-2-4-2-4-2-3-4-2-4-2-2-4-2-3-3-4-4-4-7-7-7-7-8-7)-8-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7

3) As to the allegation of illegality of the instant disposition regarding the route from the front week to the south of Korea to the Seoul Southern Terminal

A) Whether a person violates the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act with respect to the reduction in the frequency of operation

The Plaintiff’s assertion in this part constitutes a reduction in the frequency of operation of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act that requires transport demand surveys, etc., on the six occasions a day from the beginning to the beginning of the 9-day period from the front of the week to the south of the city, respectively, by the instant disposition. As seen earlier, the instant disposition is divided and extended by the Intervenor’s existing routes, and the frequency of operation is the same as that of the Intervenor’s existing routes, and thus, the frequency of operation can not be seen as a reduction in the frequency of operation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is without merit.

B) Whether passenger transport service personnel or licensing operations handling guidelines are violated on the division of operating systems

The instant disposition includes the division of the operation system. As to whether the instant disposition was made within the scope that can enhance the traffic convenience of the users pursuant to Article 7 subparagraph 3 (b) of the Guidelines for Licensing Business, which is a passenger transport business, the instant disposition, the following facts are found: (i) the 9-day average number of visitors per day from March 1, 2015 to the 2015, August 31, 201, respectively, from the 9-day office to the 41-day average number of visitors per bus route from the 694,4, and the 41-day average number of seats per bus operated on the bus operation of the said route.

Therefore, even if the above routes are divided into three times a day from the front week to the southwest Terminal from the front week to the Seoul Southern International Airport, respectively, due to the instant disposition, the above routes are operated 12 times a total of 12 times a day from the front week to the front week to the front city, and the average number of passengers per bus is 28.9 (= average 694.4 days a day: 12 times a day: 12 times a day) and there seems to be no big inconvenience for the users. On the other hand, if the above routes are operated, it can be seen that the head of the Forestry Office and the front city to the front city to the front city to the front city to the front city and the Seoul Southern International Airport to the front city to the front city to the upper city to the front city to the front city to the front city to the upper city to the front city to the front city to the front city to the front city and the front city to the front city to the front city to the front city to the front of the Incheon International Airport to the front city.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed as they are without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.