Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Succession to a golf course business plan approval at a security-trust sale
Supreme Court, Nov. 15, 2018, 2016Du45158 (judgment)
Case name: 사업계획변경승인처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the essential facilities of a members-only golf course were sold under a security trust by open competitive bidding, did the purchaser succeed, by that acquisition alone and without any separate cause for the succession, to the rights and obligations under the existing business plan approval, including the operator's private law agreements with its members?
Holding
It did. A security-trust sale is a procedure equivalent to the sales listed in Article 27(2)(i) to (iii) of the Sports Facilities Act and so falls within Article 27(2)(iv), and Article 27(3) applies paragraphs 1 and 2 to the succession of a business plan approval, the part applying paragraph 2 making acquisition of the essential facilities alone sufficient. The acquirer therefore succeeds to the approval and to the rights and obligations under it, including the agreements with members, without needing a separate transfer of the approval right. The Supreme Court nonetheless dismissed the appeals, because the approval of 28 February 2014 breached the Administrative Procedures Act and had to be cancelled on that ground alone.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 담보신탁을 근거로 한 공매 절차를 통한 체육필수시설의 인수인은 체육필수시설의 인수만으로 기존 체육시설업자에 대한 사업계획 승인을 승계함으로써 기존 체육시설업자와 회원 간에 체결된 사법상의 약정을 포함하여 그 승인에 따른 권리·의무를 승계한다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, a transferee of mandatory sports facilities through a public sale procedure based on a security trust must be regarded as succeeding to the approval of business plan of the existing sports facility business operator merely by taking over the mandatory sports facilities, and thereby succeeding to the rights and obligations arising from such approval, including the private law agreements concluded between the existing sports facility business operator and its members.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고와 피고보조참가인이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the defendant and the defendant's auxiliary intervener.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그중 제2항을 준용하는 부분은, 민사집행법에 따른 경매절차 등에 의한 체육필수시설의 인수인이 기존의 사업계획 승인권자로부터 사업계획 승인권을 양도받는 등 사업계획 승인의 승계만을 위한 별도의 원인이 없더라도, 체육필수시설의 인수만으로 사업계획 승인을 승계함으로써 기존의 사업계획 승인에 기초하여 모집된 회원과의 약정을 포함하여 승인에 따른 권리·의무를 승계하는 것으로 해석하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Among these, the part that applies paragraph (2) mutatis mutandis must be interpreted as meaning that even where a transferee of mandatory sports facilities through an auction procedure under the Civil Execution Act, among others, has no separate cause solely for the succession to the approval of business plan, such as receiving a transfer of the approval authority from the existing holder of the approval authority, the transferee succeeds to the approval of business plan merely by taking over the mandatory sports facilities, and thereby succeeds to the rights and obligations arising from such approval, including the agreements with members recruited on the basis of the existing approval of business plan.
Factors
- 체육시설법 제27조의 문언과 체계, 입법 연혁과 목적, 담보신탁의 실질적인 기능 등에 비추어
- 체육시설업자와 회원 간의 사법상 약정에 따른 권리·의무도 승계한다
- 민사집행법에 따른 경매절차 등에 의한 체육필수시설의 인수인이 기존의 사업계획 승인권자로부터 사업계획 승인권을 양도받는 등 사업계획 승인의 승계만을 위한 별도의 원인이 없더라도
- 담보신탁을 근거로 한 공매 절차는 체육시설법 제27조 제2항 제4호에서 정하는 “그 밖에 제1호부터 제3호까지의 규정에 준하는 절차”에 해당한다.
Unofficial English translation
• In view of the wording and system of Article 27 of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act, its legislative history and purpose, and the substantive function of a security trust, among others,
• The rights and obligations under the private law agreements between the sports facility business operator and its members are also succeeded to
• Even where a transferee of mandatory sports facilities through an auction procedure under the Civil Execution Act, among others, has no separate cause solely for the succession to the approval of business plan, such as receiving a transfer of the approval authority from the existing holder of the approval authority,
• A public sale procedure based on a security trust falls under "any other procedure equivalent to the procedures under subparagraphs 1 through 3" as provided in subparagraph 4 of paragraph (2) of Article 27 of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2018. 10. 18. 선고 2016다220143 전원합의체 판결(공2018하, 2183)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc judgment 2016Da220143, decided October 18, 2018 (Gong 2018 Ha, 2183)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2009. 2. 12. 선고 2007두8201 판결, 대법원 2018. 10. 18. 선고 2016다220143 전원합의체 판결(공2018하, 2183)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How far must the successor who acquired the essential facilities at a security-trust sale perform the member agreements it never negotiated, and may it invoke terms it did not know when it bid?
A later decision treating another private disposal, such as a consensual sale under the security trust agreement, as falling outside Article 27(2)(iv) would change this reading. An amendment to Article 27 of the Sports Facilities Act, or a judgment awarding the members performance against the successor, would also require the entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How far must the successor who acquired the essential facilities at a security-trust sale perform the member agreements it never negotiated, and may it invoke terms it did not know when it bid?” vs Independent “Does the same succession rule apply when essential sports facilities are transferred separately to multiple acquirers?”
The primary reading asks how far the successor must perform member agreements it never negotiated, while the independent reading asks whether the rule extends to separate transfers to multiple acquirers.
따라서 담보신탁을 근거로 한 공매 절차를 통한 체육필수시설의 인수인은 체육필수시설의 인수만으로 기존 체육시설업자에 대한 사업계획 승인을 승계함으로써 기존 체육시설업자와 회원 간에 체결된 사법상의 약정을 포함하여 그 승인에 따른 권리·의무를 승계한다고 보아야 한다.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 Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 17 June 2016 (2015Nu52397), held the change-of-business-plan approval of 28 February 2014 unlawful. It found a procedural defect, because the authority restricted the existing operator's rights and interests without giving prior notice or an opportunity to submit opinions under the Administrative Procedures Act, and no ground for omitting those steps appeared. It also held that a sale grounded in a security trust is not a procedure under Article 27(2)(iv) of the Sports Facilities Act, so the purchaser did not succeed to the rights and obligations under the approval and the disposition lacked substantive legality.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the finding of a procedural defect, and none in the ruling that the bankrupt operator's administrator still had an interest in having the approval cancelled. It did find a misreading of Article 27(2)(iv) in the substantive holding, since a security-trust sale is a procedure equivalent to the enumerated sales and the purchaser succeeded to the approval on acquiring the essential facilities alone. Because the disposition was unlawful for the procedural defect and had to be cancelled, that error did not affect the result, and the Court dismissed the appeals of the defendant and the defendant's auxiliary intervenor with the unanimous opinion of the Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the acquirer did obtain the approval right from the existing approver, since the Court's reading addresses the absence of a separate cause for the succession.
- A purchaser who did not acquire the essential facilities fixed for the facility standards, since the extension in Article 27(2) reaches only an acquirer of those facilities.
- A disposition unlawful in substance for some reason other than the succession, since here the substantive error did not touch the outcome.
Record verification notes
Set the file against two separate points before relying on this decision. First, confirm that the site and buildings bought at the sale included all the essential facilities of the golf course, since the succession turns on that acquisition. Second, remember that the approval here was still cancelled: the Court upheld the finding that the authority gave no prior notice and no chance to be heard under the Administrative Procedures Act, so a substantively valid succession does not save a measure with that defect. Also check whether members were recruited under Article 17, which is what brings their agreements into the succession.
From the official text
Points at issue
신탁법에 따른 담보신탁을 근거로 공개경쟁입찰방식에 의한 매각 절차를 통하여 체육시설업의 시설 기준에 따른 필수시설을 인수한 자가 사업계획 승인의 승계를 위한 별도의 원인 없이 체육필수시설의 인수만으로 기존 체육시설업자와 회원 간에 체결된 사법상의 약정을 포함하여 승인에 따른 권리·의무를 승계하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether a person who has acquired the mandatory facilities meeting the facility standards for a sports facility business through a sale procedure by public competitive bidding based on a security trust under the Trust Act succeeds, merely by taking over the mandatory sports facilities and without any separate cause for the succession to the approval of business plan, to the rights and obligations arising from the approval, including the private law agreements concluded between the existing sports facility business operator and its members (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
체육시설의 설치 · 이용에 관한 법률(이하 ‘체육시설법’이라 한다) 제27조 제1항은 체육시설업자의 상속과 합병 외에 영업양도의 경우에도 체육시설업의 등록 또는 신고에 따른 권리·의무를 승계한다고 정하고, 제2항은 경매를 비롯하여 이와 유사한 절차로 체육시설업의 시설 기준에 따른 필수시설(이하 ‘체육필수시설’이라 한다)을 인수한 자에 대해서도 제1항을 준용하고 있다. 위와 같은 방법으로 체육시설업자의 영업이나 체육필수시설이 타인에게 이전된 경우 영업양수인 또는 체육필수시설의 인수인 등은 체육시설업과 관련하여 형성된 공법상의 권리·의무뿐만 아니라 체육시설업자와 회원 간의 사법상 약정에 따른 권리·의무도 승계한다. 체육시설업자가 담보 목적으로 체육필수시설을 신탁법에 따라 담보신탁을 하였다가 채무를 갚지 못하여 체육필수시설이 공개경쟁입찰방식에 의한 매각(이하 ‘공매’라 한다) 절차에 따라 처분되거나 공매 절차에서 정해진 공매 조건에 따라 수의계약으로 처분되는 경우가 있다. 이와 같이 체육필수시설에 관한 담보신탁계약이 체결된 다음 그 계약에서 정한 공매나 수의계약으로 체육필수시설이 일괄하여 이전되는 경우에도 체육시설법 제27조의 문언과 체계, 입법 연혁과 목적, 담보신탁의 실질적인 기능 등에 비추어 체육필수시설의 인수인은 체육시설업자와 회원 간에 약정한 사항을 포함하여 체육시설업의 등록 또는 신고에 따른 권리·의무를 승계한다고 보아야 한다. 체육시설법 제27조 제3항은 “제12조에 따른 사업계획 승인의 승계에 관하여는 제1항과 제2항을 준용한다.”라고 정하고 있다. 이는 체육시설업의 승계에 관한 제27조 제1항과 제2항의 요건과 효과를 사업계획 승인의 승계에 준용하기 위한 것이다. 그중 제2항을 준용하는 부분은, 민사집행법에 따른 경매절차 등에 의한 체육필수시설의 인수인이 기존의 사업계획 승인권자로부터 사업계획 승인권을 양도받는 등 사업계획 승인의 승계만을 위한 별도의 원인이 없더라도, 체육필수시설의 인수만으로 사업계획 승인을 승계함으로써 기존의 사업계획 승인에 기초하여 모집된 회원과의 약정을 포함하여 승인에 따른 권리·의무를 승계하는 것으로 해석하여야 한다. 담보신탁을 근거로 한 공매 절차는 체육시설법 제27조 제2항 제4호에서 정하는 “그 밖에 제1호부터 제3호까지의 규정에 준하는 절차”에 해당한다. 따라서 담보신탁을 근거로 한 공매 절차를 통한 체육필수시설의 인수인은 체육필수시설의 인수만으로 기존 체육시설업자에 대한 사업계획 승인을 승계함으로써 기존 체육시설업자와 회원 간에 체결된 사법상의 약정을 포함하여 그 승인에 따른 권리·의무를 승계한다고 보아야 한다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고와 피고보조참가인이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The appeal costs shall be borne by the defendant and the defendant's auxiliary intervener.
Provisions referred to
체육시설의 설치 · 이용에 관한 법률 제27조 제1항, 제2항 제4호, 제3항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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