Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Deemed business plan approval without deemed related permits
Supreme Court, Mar. 11, 2021, 2020Du42569 (judgment)
Case name: 중소기업창업사업계획승인불허가처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is Article 33(3) of the Support Act on the Startup of Small and Medium Enterprises a 'special provision in another Act' under Article 3(1) of the Act on the Petition Processing, so that a mayor has no discretion to extend the 20-day period, and does a deemed business plan approval carry the related permits with it?
Holding
Yes to the first question, and no to the second. Article 33(3) of the Act on the Startup of Small and Medium Enterprises is the special provision contemplated by Article 3(1) of the Act on the Petition Processing, so the mayor may not extend the period under Article 21(1) main sentence of its Enforcement Decree, and approval is deemed given on the day after the 20th day. The deemed permit system under Article 35(1) and (4) only takes effect for items on which the mayor consulted the competent authority in advance, so a founder whose deemed approval arose without advance consultation on the permit items must still apply separately for the related permits needed to build a factory; where a development permit application has been refused and that refusal can no longer be contested, the mayor may withdraw the approval ex officio on the ground that the factory cannot objectively be built.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 사업계획승인 신청을 받은 시장 등은 민원처리법 시행령 제21조 제1항 본문에 따라 처리기간을 임의로 연장할 수 있는 재량이 없고, 사업계획승인 신청을 받은 날부터 20일 이내에 승인 여부를 알리지 않은 때에는 중소기업창업법 제33조 제3항에 따라 20일이 지난 날의 다음 날에 해당 사업계획에 대한 승인처분이 이루어진 것으로 의제된다.
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, the mayor, etc. receiving a business plan approval application has no discretion to arbitrarily extend the processing period pursuant to the main text of Article 21, paragraph (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act, and where the mayor, etc. does not notify whether to grant approval within 20 days from the date of receiving the business plan approval application, approval disposition on the business plan is deemed to have been made on the day following the day on which the 20 days elapsed, pursuant to Article 33, paragraph (3) of the Small and Medium Enterprises Startup Support Act.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The defendant shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
중소기업창업 지원법(이하 ‘중소기업창업법’이라 한다) 제33조 제1항 제1문, 제3항, 민원 처리에 관한 법률(이하 ‘민원처리법’이라 한다) 제3조 제1항, 제18조, 민원 처리에 관한 법률 시행령(이하 ‘민원처리법 시행령’이라 한다) 제21조 제1항 본문의 내용과 체계, 입법 취지를 종합하면
Unofficial English translation
In light of the content and system, and the legislative purpose of Article 33, paragraph (1), first sentence, and paragraph (3) of the Small and Medium Enterprises Startup Support Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Small and Medium Enterprises Startup Support Act'), Article 3, paragraph (1) and Article 18 of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Civil Petitions Treatment Act'), and the main text of Article 21, paragraph (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act'),
Factors
- 민원처리법 제3조 제1항에서 정한 ‘다른 법률에 특별한 규정이 있는 경우’에 해당한다
- 인허가 의제 제도는 목적사업의 원활한 수행을 위해 창구를 단일화하여 행정절차를 간소화하는 데 입법 취지가 있고
- 시장 등이 사업계획을 승인하기 전에 관계 행정청과 미리 협의한 사항에 한하여 사업계획승인처분을 할 때에 관련 인허가가 의제되는 효과가 발생할 뿐이다
- 관련 인허가 사항에 관한 사전 협의가 이루어지지 않은 채
- 창업자는 중소기업창업법에 따른 사업계획승인처분을 받은 지위를 가지게 될 뿐이고 관련 인허가까지 받은 지위를 가지는 것은 아니다
Unofficial English translation
• falls under the 'cases where special provisions exist in other statutes' prescribed in Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act
• the deemed permit and license system has as its legislative purpose the simplification of administrative procedure by consolidating the receiving window for the smooth implementation of the objective business, and
• the effect that the relevant permits and licenses are deemed granted arises only for the relevant permits and licenses on which the mayor, etc. consulted with the relevant administrative agency in advance before approving the business plan, at the time the business plan approval disposition is made
• without prior consultation on the relevant permit and license matters having taken place,
• the founder merely acquires the status of having received a business plan approval disposition under the Small and Medium Enterprises Startup Support Act, and does not acquire the status of having received the relevant permits and licenses as well
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2018. 10. 25. 선고 2018두43095 판결(공2018하, 2264)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2018Du43095 decided October 25, 2018 (Gong 2018 Ha, 2264)
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 2018. 10. 25. 선고 2018두43095 판결(공2018하, 2264), 대법원 2020. 7. 23. 선고 2019두31839 판결(공2020하, 1698)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the founder never applies at all for the related permit needed to build the factory, may the mayor still withdraw the deemed business plan approval on the ground that the factory cannot objectively be built?
Any later decision on withdrawal of a deemed approval where the founder made no permit application would answer the open question and change this entry. An amendment to Article 33 or Article 35 of the Act on the Startup of Small and Medium Enterprises, or to Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Decree on the Petition Processing, also calls for a fresh reading.
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 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary reading treats the holding as a comprehensive weighing of the statutory and consultation framework, while the independent reading lists the requirements (special provision, 20-day rule, prior consultation); both describe the same legal rules from different angles.
시장 등이 사업계획을 승인하기 전에 관계 행정청과 미리 협의한 사항에 한하여 사업계획승인처분을 할 때에 관련 인허가가 의제되는 효과가 발생할 뿐이다.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 15 June 2020 (Chuncheon) 2019Nu1680, held that the effect of a business plan approval under Article 33(3) of the Act on the Startup of Small and Medium Enterprises arose on 14 July 2018, the day after the 20-day processing period running from the date of the plaintiff's application. On the premise that the defendant could extend that period at its own discretion, it held the disposition of 3 August 2018 unlawful.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in that reading and held that the court below had not misunderstood the rules on the processing period and the deemed approval. It then rejected the defendant's argument that the disposition of 3 August 2018 lawfully withdrew the approval deemed given on 14 July 2018, because the clear words of the disposition document showed a refusal of the business plan application rather than a withdrawal or cancellation of an approval already given. The Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal and put the costs on the defendant.
Distinguishing conditions
- A petition whose processing period is governed by no special provision in another statute, so that Article 3(1) of the Act on the Petition Processing and the one-time extension under Article 21(1) of its Enforcement Decree apply of their own force.
- A permit item on which the mayor consulted the competent authority before approving the business plan, since the deemed permit effect reaches only the items so consulted.
- A disposition that genuinely withdraws an approval already given, rather than refusing the underlying application as the document in this case did.
Record verification notes
Read the disposition document itself before treating a measure as a withdrawal, since the Court turned on its exact wording. Fix the date the application was received, because the deemed approval attaches to the day after the 20th day from that date. Then list the permit items consulted in advance with each competent authority, since only those are deemed, and check whether a refused permit has become final and unappealable.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 사업계획승인 신청 민원의 처리기간과 승인 의제에 관한 중소기업창업 지원법 제33조 제3항이 민원 처리에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항에서 정한 ‘다른 법률에 특별한 규정이 있는 경우’에 해당하는지 여부(적극) 및 사업계획승인 신청을 받은 시장 등에게 민원 처리에 관한 법률 시행령 제21조 제1항 본문에 따라 처리기간을 임의로 연장할 수 있는 재량이 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 중소기업창업 지원법 제35조 제1항, 제4항에서 정한 인허가 의제 제도의 입법 취지 및 관련 인허가 사항에 관한 사전 협의가 이루어지지 않은 채 중소기업창업 지원법 제33조 제3항에서 정한 20일의 처리기간이 지난 날의 다음 날에 사업계획승인처분이 이루어진 것으로 의제된 경우, 창업자는 관련 인허가를 관계 행정청에 별도로 신청하는 절차를 거쳐야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether Article 33, paragraph (3) of the Small and Medium Enterprises Startup Support Act, which provides for the processing period and deemed approval of a civil petition application for a business plan approval, falls under the 'cases where special provisions exist in other statutes' prescribed in Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (affirmative), and whether the mayor, etc. receiving a business plan application has discretion to arbitrarily extend the processing period pursuant to the main text of Article 21, paragraph (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Petitions Treatment Act (negative) [2] The legislative purpose of the deemed permit and license system prescribed in Article 35, paragraphs (1) and (4) of the Small and Medium Enterprises Startup Support Act, and whether the founder must go through a separate procedure to apply to the relevant administrative agency for the relevant permits and licenses where the business plan approval disposition is deemed to have been made on the day following the day on which the 20-day processing period prescribed in Article 33, paragraph (3) of the Small and Medium Enterprises Startup Support Act elapsed, without prior consultation on the relevant permit and license matters having taken place (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 중소기업창업 지원법(이하 ‘중소기업창업법’이라 한다) 제33조 제1항 제1문, 제3항, 민원 처리에 관한 법률(이하 ‘민원처리법’이라 한다) 제3조 제1항, 제18조, 민원 처리에 관한 법률 시행령(이하 ‘민원처리법 시행령’이라 한다) 제21조 제1항 본문의 내용과 체계, 입법 취지를 종합하면, 사업계획승인 신청 민원의 처리기간과 승인 의제에 관한 중소기업창업법 제33조 제3항은 민원처리법 제3조 제1항에서 정한 ‘다른 법률에 특별한 규정이 있는 경우’에 해당한다. 따라서 사업계획승인 신청을 받은 시장 등은 민원처리법 시행령 제21조 제1항 본문에 따라 처리기간을 임의로 연장할 수 있는 재량이 없고, 사업계획승인 신청을 받은 날부터 20일 이내에 승인 여부를 알리지 않은 때에는 중소기업창업법 제33조 제3항에 따라 20일이 지난 날의 다음 날에 해당 사업계획에 대한 승인처분이 이루어진 것으로 의제된다. [2] 중소기업창업 지원법(이하 ‘중소기업창업법’이라 한다) 제35조 제1항, 제4항에 따르면 시장 등이 사업계획을 승인할 때 제1항 각호에서 정한 관련 인허가에 관하여 소관 행정기관의 장과 협의를 한 사항에 대해서는 관련 인허가를 받은 것으로 본다고 정하고 있다. 이러한 인허가 의제 제도는 목적사업의 원활한 수행을 위해 창구를 단일화하여 행정절차를 간소화하는 데 입법 취지가 있고 목적사업이 관계 법령상 인허가의 실체적 요건을 충족하였는지에 관한 심사를 배제하려는 취지는 아니다. 따라서 시장 등이 사업계획을 승인하기 전에 관계 행정청과 미리 협의한 사항에 한하여 사업계획승인처분을 할 때에 관련 인허가가 의제되는 효과가 발생할 뿐이다. 관련 인허가 사항에 관한 사전 협의가 이루어지지 않은 채 중소기업창업법 제33조 제3항에서 정한 20일의 처리기간이 지난 날의 다음 날에 사업계획승인처분이 이루어진 것으로 의제된다고 하더라도, 창업자는 중소기업창업법에 따른 사업계획승인처분을 받은 지위를 가지게 될 뿐이고 관련 인허가까지 받은 지위를 가지는 것은 아니다. 따라서 창업자는 공장을 설립하기 위해 필요한 관련 인허가를 관계 행정청에 별도로 신청하는 절차를 거쳐야 한다. 만일 창업자가 공장을 설립하기 위해 필요한 국토의 계획 및 이용에 관한 법률에 따른 개발행위허가를 신청하였다가 거부처분이 이루어지고 그에 대하여 제소기간이 도과하는 등의 사유로 더 이상 다툴 수 없는 효력이 발생한다면, 시장 등은 공장설립이 객관적으로 불가능함을 이유로 중소기업창업법에 따른 사업계획승인처분을 직권으로 철회하는 것도 가능하다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The defendant shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
[1] 중소기업창업 지원법 제33조 제1항, 제3항, 민원 처리에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항, 제18조, 민원 처리에 관한 법률 시행령 제21조 제1항 [2] 중소기업창업 지원법 제33조 제3항, 제35조 제1항, 제4항
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