Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Enforcement fine as indirect compulsion and the ceiling's unit of application
Supreme Court, Jan. 10, 2019, 2017Du67322 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 기타이행강제금부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under the former Special Act on the Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones, is an enforcement fine a sanction for the past failure to perform a corrective order, and where one corrective order covers a series of land-forming acts across several adjacent parcels, how is the ceiling amount in Article 41-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree, Table 5, item (iii)(a) applied?
Holding
The fine is not a sanction for the past failure to perform; it is an administrative means of indirect compulsion that warns the obligor of the imposition to come, applies psychological pressure and so forces performance of the corrective order indirectly. In principle the ceiling applies to the non-performance of each individual corrective order, not to each violation act or each offender. Where one corrective order covered a series of land-forming acts across adjacent parcels, the ceiling applies to the total obtained by multiplying each parcel's published individual land value by its violating area, and not separately to each parcel, and strict construction of the provision supporting an adverse disposition points the same way; the court below misapprehended this rule and its judgment was reversed and remanded.
Points at issue, verbatim
연접하여 있는 수 필지의 토지에 걸친 일련의 형질변경행위에 대한 시정명령이 있었음에도 위반행위자가 이를 불이행한 경우, 구 개발제한구역의 지정 및 관리에 관한 특별조치법 시행령 제41조의2 제1항 [별표 5] 제3호 (가)목에서 정한 이행강제금 한도액 규정을 적용하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
Where an order for correction has been issued with respect to a series of acts of changing the nature of land spanning several adjoining parcels of land and the violator fails to comply with it, the method of applying the provision on the maximum amount of the coercive fine for fulfillment prescribed in subparagraph 3 (a) of [Table 5] to Article 41-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Special Act on the Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones
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
Elements stated Stated in the decision
원칙적으로 개별적 시정명령의 불이행을 대상 단위로 하여 적용되어야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
In principle, it must be applied with the failure to comply with each individual order for correction as the unit of the subject.
Factors
- 구 개발제한구역의 지정 및 관리에 관한 특별조치법상 이행강제금의 법적 성격
- 연접하여 있는 수 필지의 토지에 걸친 일련의 형질변경행위에 대한 시정명령이 있었음에도 위반행위자가 이를 불이행한 경우, 구 개발제한구역의 지정 및 관리에 관한 특별조치법 시행령 제41조의2 제1항 [별표 5] 제3호 (가)목에서 정한 이행강제금 한도액 규정을 적용하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
• The legal nature of the coercive fine for fulfillment under the former Special Act on the Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones
• Where an order for correction has been issued with respect to a series of acts of changing the nature of land spanning several adjoining parcels of land and the violator fails to comply with it, the method of applying the provision on the maximum amount of the coercive fine for fulfillment prescribed in subparagraph 3 (a) of [Table 5] to Article 41-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Special Act on the Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2016. 7. 14. 선고 2015두46598 판결(공2016하, 1164)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Du46598 decided July 14, 2016 (Gong 2016 Ha, 1164)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2016. 7. 14. 선고 2015두46598 판결(공2016하, 1164)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a corrective order on adjoining parcels has been performed only in part, must the ceiling be applied afresh to each repeated imposition of an enforcement fine under Article 30-2(4) of the Special Act?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court will show how the ceiling is applied to the fines on parcels 2 to 4 and how the single decision of the authority is made. Any change to Article 30-2 of the Special Act or to Article 41-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree would require this 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 “Where a corrective order on adjoining parcels has been performed only in part, must the ceiling be applied afresh to each repeated imposition of an enforcement fine under Article 30-2(4) of the Special Act?” vs Independent “How should the cap apply if an authority issues separate corrective orders for individual parcels within a single series of alterations across adjoining land?”
The primary reading asks whether the ceiling must be reapplied to each repeated fine when adjoining-parcel orders are only partly performed, while the independent reading asks how the ceiling applies when the authority issues separate orders for each parcel.
연접하여 있는 수 필지의 토지에 걸친 일련의 형질변경행위에 대한 시정명령이 있었음에도 위반행위자가 이를 불이행한 경우, 구 개발제한구역의 지정 및 관리에 관한 특별조치법 시행령 제41조의2 제1항 [별표 5] 제3호 (가)목에서 정한 이행강제금 한도액 규정을 적용하는 방법Raw 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 15 September 2017 (2017Nu45188), proceeded from the premise that the ceiling applies per violation act of the Special Act or per violator. It held that the plaintiff's land-forming acts were a single violation act, so the ceiling was applied to the total of KRW 162,727,000 in fines, and held the portion above the cap of 50 million won unlawful.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the ceiling must be applied separately to the violation of the corrective order on parcel 1 and to the violation of the corrective order on parcels 2 to 4. The fine of KRW 43,461,000 on parcel 1 is lawful, but the fines on parcels 2 to 4, imposed parcel by parcel as KRW 43,461,000 on parcel 2, KRW 43,461,000 on parcel 3 and KRW 32,344,000 on parcel 4, together exceed the cap of 50 million won set by the Enforcement Decree, so they are unlawful. It added that the court below should have clarified the claim and set aside all of those fines so that the authority could make one decision applying the ceiling, reversed the judgment, and did not reach the remaining grounds of appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A corrective order issued separately for one parcel, so that the ceiling is applied to that order on its own.
- A single corrective order covering several parcels that are not adjacent and do not form one series of land-forming acts, since the Court relied on the series of acts across adjoining parcels.
- An enforcement fine whose amount computed for one corrective order does not exceed 50 million won, so that the ceiling has nothing left to limit.
Record verification notes
Set out every corrective order with its date and the parcels it covered, since the ceiling in this decision follows the order and not the land. For each order, compute the amount by multiplying each parcel's published individual land value by its violating area and sum the results before comparing with 50 million won. Check which versions of the Act and the Enforcement Decree were in force at the time, because the decision applied the Act as it stood before the amendment of 31 December 2014 and the Decree as it stood before the amendment of 11 July 2017.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 개발제한구역의 지정 및 관리에 관한 특별조치법상 이행강제금의 법적 성격 [2] 연접하여 있는 수 필지의 토지에 걸친 일련의 형질변경행위에 대한 시정명령이 있었음에도 위반행위자가 이를 불이행한 경우, 구 개발제한구역의 지정 및 관리에 관한 특별조치법 시행령 제41조의2 제1항 [별표 5] 제3호 (가)목에서 정한 이행강제금 한도액 규정을 적용하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
[1] The legal nature of the coercive fine for fulfillment under the former Special Act on the Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones [2] Where an order for correction has been issued with respect to a series of acts of changing the nature of land spanning several adjoining parcels of land and the violator fails to comply with it, the method of applying the provision on the maximum amount of the coercive fine for fulfillment prescribed in subparagraph 3 (a) of [Table 5] to Article 41-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Special Act on the Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
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] 구 개발제한구역의 지정 및 관리에 관한 특별조치법(2014. 12. 31. 법률 제12956호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제30조 제1항, 제30조의2 [2] 구 개발제한구역의 지정 및 관리에 관한 특별조치법 시행령(2017. 7. 11. 대통령령 제28180호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제41조의2 제1항 [별표 5] 제3호
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