Whether a route bus transport business operator can obtain prior authorization to change a route of a bus based on Article 14-2 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (negative)

Article 14-2 (4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, No. 147 of Aug. 20, 198) provides that "a license shall be granted to a regular bus transport business entity prior to the stage where the license is granted and a regular bus transport business entity: Provided, That this shall not apply where it is inappropriate to grant a license to a regular bus transport business entity for the convenience of local residents, such as the improvement of service, etc., and Article 4 of the former Regulations on the Temporary Bus Transport Business (amended by the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, No. 147 of the same Act) provides that a license shall be granted to a regular bus transport business entity prior to the change of the route and number of flights after investigating the traffic demand, and the head of the competent Gu shall provide that a license shall be granted to a regular bus transport business entity prior to the change of the route and service route in the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, and that a new bus transport business entity prior to the change of the route.

Article 13(1) of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997); Articles 12, 14-2(4), and 21 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by the Enforcement Rule of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 147 of Aug. 20, 1998)

Han-nam Passenger Transport Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor (Attorney O Byung-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Hunting Transport Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu36813 delivered on July 23, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 14-2 (4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act, No. 147 of August 20, 198; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule") provides that "in the case of a route bus transport business, a license may be granted preferentially to the relevant regular route bus transport business operator: Provided, That this shall not apply where it is inappropriate to grant a license to a route bus transport business operator for the convenience of local residents, such as the improvement of services, etc.," and Article 4 of the former Enforcement Rule of the former Automobile Transport Business Act provides that "the head of the competent Gu shall determine the number of regular bus transport business operators who participate in the area where the operation of the route bus is deemed necessary after investigating the traffic demand and determine the number of regular bus transport services, and shall provide that a license shall be granted to the relevant regular route bus transport business operator in preference to the relevant regular route bus transport business operator if there is an intention to participate in the business."

Meanwhile, Article 13 (1) of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 5448 of Dec. 13, 1997) provides that when a vehicle transport business operator intends to change his/her business plan, he/she shall obtain authorization from the Minister of Construction and Transportation. Accordingly, Article 21 of the Enforcement Rule provides that a person who intends to obtain approval for change of his/her business plan concerning change of matters stated in the business plan under Article 12 of the Enforcement Rule shall submit a prescribed application form to the competent authority, and Article 9 of the Operating Rule provides that "where the head of the competent authority deems it necessary to adjust the already licensed route due to changes in the conditions of transport, he/she may adjust the service route after hearing the opinions of passenger and the relevant bus transport business operator. In such cases, he/she shall give priority to the approval for change of the service route bus transport business operator, or Article 14-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the new license shall not apply.

In accordance with the contents and purport of the relevant provisions, the court below is just in rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff should first obtain an amendment to the transport business plan to alter the route of the village bus in this case based on his annual interest, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the former Automobile Transport Business Act.

In addition, as long as it is determined that Article 14-2(4) of the Enforcement Rule is not applicable in the case of the modification of the transport business plan, the decision of the court below that the defendant assistant participant (hereinafter the intervenor) is involved in the modification of the transport business plan shall be added, and the decision of the court below shall not affect the conclusion of the

2. On the second and third grounds for appeal

According to the records, it is clear that the plaintiff, as the lawsuit in this case, sought the revocation of the disposition that the defendant rejected the application for modification of the plan for the automobile transportation business (village bus) against the plaintiff on July 31, 1997 and the disposition that approved the modification of the route for the intervenor, and that there was no petition for revocation of the disposition that rejected the application for new limited license for the village bus. Thus, it is just that the court below did not determine the return disposition, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or omission of judgment.

In addition, in light of the records, the disposition of this case was made at the request of the intervenor of the Seoul National University, the actual user of the route, and according to the plaintiff's business plan, the length of the village bus is at least twice the previous route and almost similar to the application for a new business license, and its routes overlap with most of the village bus of the intervenor and increase in the distance of dispatch is expected to cause inconvenience to the passengers. On the other hand, the intervenor's business plan is merely an extension of the previous route, the vehicle is increased, and the distance of dispatch is maintained at the previous level, and the interested parties are opposed to the plaintiff's business plan, and there is no error of law that deviates from discretionary authority by disregarding the public interest, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the public interest of administrative disposition and discretionary authority.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-hee (Presiding Justice)