Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Judicial Review of Abuse of Discretion in Sanctions Imposed Under Disposition Criteria Set Forth in the Form of a Ministerial Ordinance, and a Surcharge for Sale of Opened Packages Under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Sept. 20, 2007, 2007Du6946 (judgment)
Case name: 과징금부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May a surcharge, imposed in lieu of a business suspension under the disposition criteria set forth in a ministerial ordinance, be canceled as a violation of the principle of proportionality on the ground that the violation was minor?
Holding
Disposition criteria in the form of a ministerial ordinance have no external binding force, so conformity with them does not immediately render a disposition lawful; however, unless the criteria themselves are incompatible with the Constitution or statutes, or unless there is reasonable ground to find the resulting disposition manifestly improper, the disposition must not readily be found to involve an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court held that the disposition is difficult to regard as an abuse of discretion, citing the purpose of the provision prohibiting sales of opened packages, the circumstance that this was a large pharmacy, and the circumstances under which the disposition was changed to a surcharge after prior notice.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
위 처분기준이 그 자체로 헌법 또는 법률에 합치되지 아니하거나 위 처분기준에 따른 제재적 행정처분이 그 처분사유가 된 위반행위의 내용 및 관계 법령의 규정 내용과 취지에 비추어 현저히 부당하다고 인정할 만한 합리적인 이유가 없는 한 섣불리 그 처분이 재량권의 범위를 일탈하였거나 재량권을 남용한 것이라고 판단해서는 안 된다.
Unofficial English translation
Unless there is a reasonable ground for recognizing that the aforesaid disposition standard is itself not in conformity with the Constitution or Acts, or that the punitive administrative disposition made pursuant to the aforesaid disposition standard is manifestly unfair in light of the content of the violation constituting the ground for such disposition and the content and purport of the provisions of the relevant statutes, one should not rashly determine that such disposition has exceeded the scope of discretion or has abused discretion.
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
재량권의 범위를 일탈하거나 재량권을 남용한 것으로 보기 어렵다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case in which it was held difficult to regard as an excess or abuse of discretion
Factors
- 처분사유인 위반행위의 내용과 당해 처분행위에 의하여 달성하려는 공익목적
- 공익 침해의 정도와 그 처분으로 인하여 개인이 입게 될 불이익을 비교·형량하여
- 처분기준이 그 자체로 헌법 또는 법률에 합치되지 아니하거나
- 현저히 부당하다고 인정할 만한 합리적인 이유
Unofficial English translation
• the content of the violation constituting the ground for the disposition and the public interest purpose sought to be achieved by the disposition in question
• by comparing and weighing the degree of infringement upon the public interest and the disadvantages that an individual will suffer by reason of such disposition
• that the disposition standard is itself not in conformity with the Constitution or Acts, or
• a reasonable ground for recognizing it as manifestly unfair
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2007. 7. 19. 선고 2006두19297 전원합의체 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc judgment 2006Du19297 decided July 19, 2007
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2002. 2. 5. 선고 2001두7138 판결(공2002상, 684), 대법원 2007. 6. 28. 선고 2005두9910 판결, 대법원 2007. 7. 19. 선고 2006두19297 전원합의체 판결(공2007하, 1291) / [2] 대법원 1995. 10. 17. 선고 94누14148 전원합의체 판결(공1995하, 3544), 대법원 1997. 5. 30. 선고 96누5773 판결(공1997하, 1904), 대법원 2006. 6. 22. 선고 2003두1684 전원합의체 판결(공2006하, 1363)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the disposition criteria under a ministerial ordinance prescribe a uniform period of business suspension without regard to the gravity of the violation, what is the standard for finding the criteria themselves incompatible with statutes?
This reading will be checked again if an en banc judgment takes a different view of the external binding force of sanction disposition criteria, or if the provisions of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act governing business suspensions and surcharges are amended.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading of the original text alone by another family of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which did not see the first reading, 6 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on Axis 4 (Form of the test) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
Because the original text contains both a general standard that compares several interests and the application of that standard to the surcharge in this case, the first reading may focus on the application to the facts, while the independent reading may focus on the overall assessment.
처분사유인 위반행위의 내용과 당해 처분행위에 의하여 달성하려는 공익목적 및 이에 따르는 제반 사정 등을 객관적으로 심리Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the disposition criteria under a ministerial ordinance prescribe a uniform period of business suspension without regard to the gravity of the violation, what is the standard for finding the criteria themselves incompatible with statutes?” vs Independent “Even in the case of a surcharge under the disposition criteria, are there specific circumstances on which the surcharge may be found manifestly improper?”
The first reading asks for the standard that determines the illegality of uniform disposition criteria themselves, while the independent reading asks for the circumstances on which the manifest impropriety of an individual surcharge disposition may be found.
위 처분기준이 그 자체로 헌법 또는 법률에 합치되지 아니하거나 위 처분기준에 따른 제재적 행정처분이 그 처분사유가 된 위반행위의 내용 및 관계 법령의 규정 내용과 취지에 비추어 현저히 부당하다고 인정할 만한 합리적인 이유가 없는 한 섣불리 그 처분이 재량권의 범위를 일탈하였거나 재량권을 남용한 것이라고 판단해서는 안 된다.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 Decision 2006Nu10186) found that the plaintiff, a pharmacy operator, violated former Article 39 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act by selling the over-the-counter drug Magmil after opening the package, and that the defendant, after giving prior notice of a 15-day business suspension, imposed a surcharge of 8,550,000 won in lieu of the 15-day business suspension. However, it held that, considering the content and degree of the violation and its effect on public health, a 15-day period of business suspension violated the principle of proportionality and constituted an abuse of discretion, and that the illegality extended to the disposition imposing the surcharge, and it canceled the disposition.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion, taking together the circumstances that the provision prohibiting sales of opened packages is directly related to the essence of the principle of separation of prescribing and dispensing, that Magmil also requires instructions for use and explanations of side effects, that a large pharmacy is all the more bound to observe statutes and regulations strictly, that the defendant heard the plaintiff's opinion and changed the disposition to a surcharge, and that no ground for reduction could be found. It reversed and remanded the judgment of the court below, which held otherwise.
Distinguishing conditions
- Cases where the disposition criteria are set forth not in a ministerial ordinance but in the form of a Presidential Decree or the like, and their external binding force is separately at issue
- Cases where there are circumstances showing that the disposition criteria themselves are incompatible with the Constitution or statutes, in that they take no account whatsoever of the gravity of the violation
- Cases where the disposition criteria provide for grounds for reduction but the administrative agency failed to take them into account
Record verification notes
Before asserting abuse of discretion in a sanction imposed under disposition criteria, one should check the form of the disposition criteria and the reduction provisions, what significance the violation has in light of the purpose of the provision, and whether the administrative agency heard opinions and adjusted the disposition.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 제재적 행정처분이 재량권의 범위를 일탈·남용하였는지 여부의 판단 기준 [2] 제재적 행정처분의 기준이 부령의 형식으로 규정되어 있는 경우, 그 기준에 따른 처분의 적법성에 관한 판단 방법 [3] 약사의 의약품 개봉판매행위에 대하여 구 약사법령에 근거하여 업무정지에 갈음하는 과징금 부과처분을 한 것이 재량권의 일탈·남용에 해당한다고 보기 어렵다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] Criteria for judging whether a punitive administrative disposition has exceeded or abused the scope of discretion [2] Method of judging the lawfulness of a disposition made in accordance with a disposition standard where such standard is prescribed in the form of a ministerial ordinance [3] A case in which it was held difficult to regard the imposition of a surcharge in lieu of business suspension on a pharmacist for selling opened medicines on the basis of the former Pharmaceutical Affairs Act as an excess or abuse of discretion
Summary of the holding
[1] 제재적 행정처분이 사회통념상 재량권의 범위를 일탈하였거나 남용하였는지 여부는 처분사유인 위반행위의 내용과 당해 처분행위에 의하여 달성하려는 공익목적 및 이에 따르는 제반 사정 등을 객관적으로 심리하여 공익 침해의 정도와 그 처분으로 인하여 개인이 입게 될 불이익을 비교·형량하여 판단하여야 한다. [2] 제재적 행정처분의 기준이 부령의 형식으로 규정되어 있더라도 그것은 행정청 내부의 사무처리준칙을 정한 것에 지나지 아니하여 대외적으로 국민이나 법원을 기속하는 효력이 없고, 당해 처분의 적법 여부는 위 처분기준만이 아니라 관계 법령의 규정 내용과 취지에 따라 판단되어야 하므로, 위 처분기준에 적합하다 하여 곧바로 당해 처분이 적법한 것이라고 할 수는 없지만, 위 처분기준이 그 자체로 헌법 또는 법률에 합치되지 아니하거나 위 처분기준에 따른 제재적 행정처분이 그 처분사유가 된 위반행위의 내용 및 관계 법령의 규정 내용과 취지에 비추어 현저히 부당하다고 인정할 만한 합리적인 이유가 없는 한 섣불리 그 처분이 재량권의 범위를 일탈하였거나 재량권을 남용한 것이라고 판단해서는 안 된다. [3] 약사의 의약품 개봉판매행위에 대하여 구 약사법(2007. 4. 11. 법률 제8365호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제69조 제1항 제3호, 제3항, 같은 법 시행규칙(2005. 10. 7. 보건복지부령 제332호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제89조 [별표 6] ‘행정처분의 기준’에 따라 업무정지 15일의 처분을 사전통지하였다가, 그 후 같은 법 제71조의3 제1항, 제2항, 같은 법 시행령(2007. 6. 28. 대통령령 제20130호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제29조 [별표 1의2] ‘과징금 산정기준’에 따라 업무정지 15일에 갈음하는 과징금 부과처분을 한 것이 재량권의 범위를 일탈하거나 재량권을 남용한 것으로 보기 어렵다고 한 사례.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 행정소송법 제1조[행정처분일반], 제27조 [2] 행정소송법 제1조[행정처분일반], 제27조 [3] 구 약사법(2007. 4. 11. 법률 제8365호로 전문 개정되기 전의 것) 제39조(현행 제48조 참조), 제69조 제1항 제3호(현행 제76조 제1항 제3호 참조), 제3항(현행 제76조 제3항 참조), 제71조의3(현행 제81조 참조), 구 약사법 시행령(2007. 6. 28. 대통령령 제20130호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제29조 [별표 1의2], 구 약사법 시행규칙(2005. 10. 7. 보건복지부령 제332호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제89조 [별표 6]
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