Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
The Legal Character of the Disposition Standards for Penalty Surcharges under the Enforcement Decree of the Youth Protection Act and the Meaning of the Amount of a Penalty Surcharge
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Mar. 9, 2001, 99Du5207 (judgment)
Case name: 과징금부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is the amount of the penalty surcharge disposition standard for each type of violation under the former Enforcement Decree of the Youth Protection Act a fixed amount that must be imposed exactly as stated?
Holding
Although that disposition standard is delegated legislation, its amount is the maximum limit, because the appropriate amount must be determined comprehensively in light of the intent of the delegation under the parent Act and the principles against excess and of equality, taking into account the scale and duration of the violation, the degree of social condemnation, whether other punishment has been imposed, personal circumstances, unlawful gains, and the like. The Supreme Court upheld the court below, which treated as an excess of discretion the disposition imposing on a business owner who had employed 2 youths for 7 days a penalty surcharge twice the maximum limit.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그 수액은 정액이 아니라 최고한도액이다.
Unofficial English translation
The amount thereof is not a fixed amount but a maximum amount.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
공익침해의 정도와 그 처분으로 인하여 개인이 입게 될 불이익을 비교 교량하여 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
It must be determined by comparing and weighing the degree of the infringement upon the public interest against the disadvantages that an individual will suffer by reason of the disposition.
Factors
- 같은 유형의 위반행위라 하더라도 그 규모나 기간·사회적 비난 정도
- 위반행위로 인하여 다른 법률에 의하여 처벌받은 다른 사정
- 위반행위로 얻은 불법이익의 규모
- 처분사유로 된 위반행위의 내용과 당해 처분행위에 의하여 달성하려는 공익목적
Unofficial English translation
• even in the case of violations of the same type, the scale or duration thereof and the degree of social condemnation
• other circumstances, such as having been punished under other Acts by reason of the violation
• the scale of the illicit gains obtained from the violation
• the content of the violation that formed the grounds for the disposition and the public interest purpose intended to be achieved by the disposition in question
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2000. 4. 7. 선고 98두11779 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 98Du11779 decided April 7, 2000
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 1989. 4. 25. 선고 88누3079 판결(공1989, 830), 대법원 1991. 10. 11. 선고 91누1097 판결(공1991, 2745), 대법원 1992. 6. 23. 선고 92누2851 판결(공1992, 2293), 대법원 1993. 12. 21. 선고 93누16796 판결(공1994상, 545), 대법원 2000. 4. 7. 선고 98두11779 판결(공2000상, 1204)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Even where a penalty surcharge is imposed within the upper limit of a disposition standard that is delegated legislation, under what circumstances does it become unlawful as an excess or abuse of discretion?
If the penalty surcharge provisions of the Youth Protection Act or the disposition standards of the Enforcement Decree are amended, or if the case law on the legal character of sanction-type disposition standards changes, we will re-examine this reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by another AI model (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the initial reading, 7 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on the eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Even where a penalty surcharge is imposed within the upper limit of a disposition standard that is delegated legislation, under what circumstances does it become unlawful as an excess or abuse of discretion?” vs Independent “How much weight should be given to each factor in reducing the penalty surcharge from the maximum limit?”
The initial reading asks under what circumstances a disposition within the upper limit becomes unlawful, while the independent reading asks how much weight to assign to each factor in determining the degree of reduction.
그 수액은 정액이 아니라 최고한도액이다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below (Seoul High Court, 98Nu13647) held that the standard amounts in [Attached Table 6] of the Enforcement Decree are maximum limits, and that, although employing 2 youths at an entertainment establishment was not a minor violation, given that the period of employment was as short as 7 days, the profit actually obtained was not large, and the plaintiff had received a 15-day business suspension order under the Food Sanitation Act for the same violation, the disposition imposing a penalty surcharge of 16,000,000 won, twice the maximum limit, was unlawful as exceeding the bounds of discretion.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held the measure taken by the court below to be proper, in light of the legal principle that, even where the disposition standard is delegated legislation, its amount is the maximum limit to be determined by comprehensively weighing various factors, and that an excess or abuse of discretion is determined by comparing and weighing the degree of infringement upon the public interest against the disadvantage to the individual. The Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's final appeal, finding no misapprehension of legal principles with regard to the legal character of the disposition standard and to excess of discretion.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the statute is construed as fixing the amount of the penalty surcharge as a definite amount leaving no room for reduction
- Where the scale of the violation is large or its duration long and the unlawful gains substantial, so that an imposition close to the maximum limit is justified
- Where what is at issue is not a penalty surcharge but another type of sanction, such as a business suspension order, and the wording and structure of the disposition standard are different
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, check whether the penalty surcharge imposed exceeded the upper limit of the disposition standard or fell within it, and whether the duration of the violation, the profit, and the existence of other sanctions are confirmed by the Records.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 청소년보호법 제49조 제1항, 제2항의 위임에 따른 같은법시행령 제40조 [별표 6]의 위반행위의종별에따른과징금처분기준의 법적 성격(=법규명령) 및 그 과징금 수액의 의미(=최고한도액) [2] 제재적 행정처분이 재량권의 범위를 일탈·남용하였는지 여부의 판단 기준
Unofficial English translation
[1] The legal nature (= delegated legislation) of the criteria for the imposition of fines according to the type of violation set forth in [Table 6] of Article 40 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Youth Protection Act, enacted pursuant to the delegation under Article 49, paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the former Youth Protection Act, and the meaning of the amount of such fine (= maximum amount) [2] Criteria for determining whether a punitive administrative disposition has exceeded or abused the scope of discretion
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 청소년보호법(1999. 2. 5. 법률 제5817호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제49조 제1항, 제2항에 따른 같은법시행령(1999. 6. 30. 대통령령 제16461호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제40조 [별표 6]의 위반행위의종별에따른과징금처분기준은 법규명령이기는 하나 모법의 위임규정의 내용과 취지 및 헌법상의 과잉금지의 원칙과 평등의 원칙 등에 비추어 같은 유형의 위반행위라 하더라도 그 규모나 기간·사회적 비난 정도·위반행위로 인하여 다른 법률에 의하여 처벌받은 다른 사정·행위자의 개인적 사정 및 위반행위로 얻은 불법이익의 규모 등 여러 요소를 종합적으로 고려하여 사안에 따라 적정한 과징금의 액수를 정하여야 할 것이므로 그 수액은 정액이 아니라 최고한도액이다. [2] 제재적 행정처분이 사회통념상 재량권의 범위를 일탈하였거나 남용하였는지 여부는 처분사유로 된 위반행위의 내용과 당해 처분행위에 의하여 달성하려는 공익목적 및 이에 따르는 제반 사정 등을 객관적으로 심리하여 공익침해의 정도와 그 처분으로 인하여 개인이 입게 될 불이익을 비교 교량하여 판단하여야 한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고의 부담으로 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 청소년보호법(1999. 2. 5. 법률 제5817호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제49조 제1항, 제2항, 구 청소년보호법시행령(1999. 6. 30. 대통령령 제16461호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제40조 [별표 6] 위반행위의종별에따른과징금처분기준 [2] 행정소송법 제1조[행정처분일반], 제27조
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger