Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Business succession report and the duty to report a change in premises area
Supreme Court, May 9, 2024, 2023Du57142 (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: 영업정지처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a transferee acquired a food manufacturing and processing business carried on in both a licensed main building and an unlicensed building at the rear, and kept operating in the unlicensed building without reporting the change in premises area, was the transferee in breach of the change-reporting duty under Article 37(5) of the Food Sanitation Act, so that a correction order or a suspension of business could be imposed?
Holding
Yes. The Court held that accepting a business-succession report is not merely receiving notice of a transfer already effective between the parties; it sets the transferee in the position of lawfully operating the business, so the transferee must attach documentary evidence showing that all lawful operating requirements are met, including lawful use rights over the building in question and the facility standards under Article 20 of the former Enforcement Rules. Because the plaintiff filed the succession report and the business-name change report as though only the main building had been transferred, acceptance gave the plaintiff no position to operate in the unlicensed building, and continuing there without reporting the change in area left the duty under the proviso to Article 37(5) unperformed, so the operation was open to suspension under Article 75(1).
Points at issue, verbatim
영업장 면적 변경에 관한 신고의무가 이행되지 않은 영업을 양수한 자가 그 신고의무를 이행하지 않은 채 영업을 계속하는 경우, 시정명령 또는 영업정지 등 제재처분의 대상이 되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether a person who has acquired a business for which the duty to report a change in the area of business premises has not been performed and continues to operate the business without performing such reporting duty becomes subject to a corrective order or a sanction such as suspension of business (affirmative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
양수인은 영업자 지위승계 신고서에 해당 영업장에서 적법하게 영업을 할 수 있는 요건을 모두 갖추었다는 점을 확인할 수 있는 소명자료를 첨부하여 제출하여야 하며
Unofficial English translation
The transferee must attach and submit to the report on succession to the status of a business operator explanatory materials that can confirm that all requirements for lawfully operating a business at the relevant business premises have been satisfied,
Factors
- 식품위생법령상 식품제조·가공업 등록의무 및 영업장 면적 등 변경신고의무 조항과 형사처벌, 영업정지 등 조항의 취지
- 구 식품위생법 제25조 제3항에서 정한 영업양도에 따른 지위승계 신고에서 양수인이 영업자 지위승계 신고서에 첨부하여 제출할 소명자료의 내용
- 영업장 면적 변경에 관한 신고의무가 이행되지 않은 영업을 양수한 자가 그 신고의무를 이행하지 않은 채 영업을 계속하는 경우, 시정명령 또는 영업정지 등 제재처분의 대상이 되는지 여부
Unofficial English translation
• Purposes of the provisions of the Food Sanitation Act and its subordinate statutes requiring registration of a food manufacturing and processing business and requiring reporting of changes such as the area of business premises, and the provisions on criminal punishment, suspension of business, etc.
• The content of the explanatory materials that a transferee must attach and submit to the report on succession to the status of a business operator upon a transfer of business as provided in Article 25 (3) of the former Food Sanitation Act
• Whether a person who has acquired a business for which the duty to report a change in the area of business premises has not been performed and continues to operate the business without performing such reporting duty becomes subject to a corrective order or a sanction such as suspension of business
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2014. 3. 13. 선고 2012두18882 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18882 decided March 13, 2014
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2014. 3. 13. 선고 2012두18882 판결 / [2] 대법원 2012. 1. 12. 선고 2011도6561 판결(공2012상, 293), 대법원 2020. 3. 26. 선고 2019두38830 판결(공2020상, 841)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When the change-reporting duty is breached only in one of several buildings used by the same operator, what governs the length of the suspension of business set under Article 75(1)(vii)-2?
The remand judgment of the Busan High Court, once it reads the succession report filed on 23 September 2003 against the unlicensed building, will show how the duty is applied on the record. Any amendment to Article 37(5), Article 75(1)(vii)-2 or Article 95(ii)-2 of the Food Sanitation Act, or to Article 26-2(1)(i) of the Enforcement Decree or Article 43-3(3)(iii) of the Enforcement Rules, calls for 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 “When the change-reporting duty is breached only in one of several buildings used by the same operator, what governs the length of the suspension of business set under Article 75(1)(vii)-2?” vs Independent “Do the grounds of appeal left unexamined affect the ultimate legality of the seven-day business suspension?”
The primary reading asks what sets the suspension length when only one of several buildings is affected, while the independent reading asks whether unexamined grounds of appeal affect the legality of the seven-day suspension.
영업장 면적 변경에 관한 신고의무가 이행되지 않은 영업을 양수한 자가 그 신고의무를 이행하지 않은 채 영업을 계속하는 경우, 시정명령 또는 영업정지 등 제재처분의 대상이 되는지 여부(적극)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 Busan High Court, in its judgment of 11 October 2023 (2023Nu20478), held that the reporting duty for a change in premises area was added only when the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 17971 on 22 April 2003, and that there was no proof that the plaintiff's enlargement of the floor area had been made after that amendment. For an area change made before that amendment, it held that no reporting duty rested on the plaintiff.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that this reading could not be accepted. Accepting the succession report had given the plaintiff no position to operate lawfully in the unlicensed building, since the plaintiff had not disclosed that the transferred business included that building or shown that it met the lawful operating requirements, so continuing to operate there left the change-reporting duty unperformed. It found that the court below had misapprehended the legal principles on business-succession reports and change reports for premises area, with an effect on the outcome, and reversed the whole judgment for a fresh hearing by the Busan High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- A succession report that discloses that the transferred business includes the building relied on and attaches evidence of lawful use rights and the former facility standards, so that acceptance sets a right to operate there.
- An enlargement of the floor area reported to the district office under the proviso to Article 37(5), since the change-reporting duty is then performed.
- A registrable food manufacturing and processing business carried on without registration at all, where Article 95(ii)-2 then provides for imprisonment or a fine.
Record verification notes
Set against the file the succession report and the name-change report filed with the defendant on 23 September 2003, and read what each of them said about the premises, since the Court's whole reasoning turns on the scope disclosed there. Compare the licensed area of 587.4 square metres with the 748.8 square metres actually used and the unlicensed building from basement level 1 to level 3, and check whether any change report was filed at any time. Then follow the correction order of 6 January 2022, the partition work carried out in the main building, the demolition that was not carried out, and the suspension of seven days imposed on 28 July 2022, and confirm which version of the Act, the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rules governs each step.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 식품위생법령상 식품제조·가공업 등록의무 및 영업장 면적 등 변경신고의무 조항과 형사처벌, 영업정지 등 조항의 취지 [2] 구 식품위생법 제25조 제3항에서 정한 영업양도에 따른 지위승계 신고에서 양수인이 영업자 지위승계 신고서에 첨부하여 제출할 소명자료의 내용 / 영업장 면적 변경에 관한 신고의무가 이행되지 않은 영업을 양수한 자가 그 신고의무를 이행하지 않은 채 영업을 계속하는 경우, 시정명령 또는 영업정지 등 제재처분의 대상이 되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Purposes of the provisions of the Food Sanitation Act and its subordinate statutes requiring registration of a food manufacturing and processing business and requiring reporting of changes such as the area of business premises, and the provisions on criminal punishment, suspension of business, etc. [2] The content of the explanatory materials that a transferee must attach and submit to the report on succession to the status of a business operator upon a transfer of business as provided in Article 25 (3) of the former Food Sanitation Act / Whether a person who has acquired a business for which the duty to report a change in the area of business premises has not been performed and continues to operate the business without performing such reporting duty becomes subject to a corrective order or a sanction such as suspension of business (affirmative)
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 부산고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 식품위생법 제37조 제5항, 제75조 제1항 제7호의2, 제95조 제2호의2, 식품위생법 시행령 제26조의2 제1항 제1호, 식품위생법 시행규칙 제43조의3 제3항 제3호 [2] 구 식품위생법(2008. 2. 29. 법률 제8852호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제25조 제1항(현행 제39조 제1항 참조), 제3항(현행 제39조 제3항 참조), 식품위생법 제37조 제5항, 제75조 제1항 제7호의2, 제95조 제2호의2, 식품위생법 시행령 제26조의2 제1항 제1호, 구 식품위생법 시행규칙(2005. 7. 28. 보건복지부령 제324호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제20조, 식품위생법 시행규칙 제43조의3 제3항 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