Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Approval status irrelevant to promising money for selecting a management business operator
Supreme Court, Oct. 30, 2025, 2024Do20898 (judgment)
Case name: 빈집및소규모주택정비에관한특례법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does Article 54(7)(i) of the former Act on Special Cases for the Maintenance of Deteriorated Houses and Small-scale Housing Redevelopment prohibit, and Article 59(ii) punish, anyone who expresses an intention to provide money or promises to provide it in connection with the selection of a specialised management business operator, regardless of whether and when the landowners' association had received approval for its establishment?
Holding
Yes. Reading the wording, content and legislative purpose of the provision, which are to raise transparency and fairness in the selection of a specialised management business operator, to prevent turbulence and overheating in the redevelopment and reconstruction contracting market, and to prevent disputes among stakeholders, the Supreme Court held that the offence is punishable whether or not the association had received approval for its establishment, and at whatever time. It therefore found no error in the judgment below and dismissed the appeal.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
조합설립인가를 받았는지 여부나 그 시기와 상관없이, 누구든지 정비사업전문관리업자의 선정과 관련하여 금품 등 제공의사를 표시하거나 제공을 약속하는 행위를 하면 이 규정에 따라 처벌된다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Regardless of whether approval for the establishment of the association has been obtained or when it was obtained, if any person, in connection with the selection of a specialized maintenance business operator for maintenance projects, commits an act of expressing an intention to provide money, goods, etc. or promising to provide them, he or she must be regarded as being punished under this provision.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이러한 소규모주택정비법 규정의 문언 및 내용, 입법 취지 등에 비추어 보면, 조합설립인가를 받았는지 여부나 그 시기와 상관없이
Unofficial English translation
In light of the text and content of these provisions of the Small-Scale Housing Maintenance Act, their legislative purpose, etc., regardless of whether approval for the establishment of the association has been obtained or when it was obtained,
Factors
- 정비사업전문관리업자 선정 과정의 투명성과 공정성을 제고하여
- 재개발·재건축 수주시장의 혼탁·과열을 방지하고
- 토지 등 소유자 등 이해당사자들 사이의 분쟁을 예방하기 위한 것이다.
- 소규모주택정비법 규정의 문언 및 내용
Unofficial English translation
• In order to enhance the transparency and fairness of the process of selecting a specialized maintenance business operator for maintenance projects,
• to prevent the confusion and overheating of the contract-award market for redevelopment and reconstruction, and
• to prevent disputes among interested parties such as owners of land, etc.
• the text and content of the provisions of the Small-Scale Housing Maintenance Act
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
조합설립인가를 받았는지 여부나 그 시기와 상관없이, 누구든지 정비사업전문관리업자의 선정과 관련하여 금품 등 제공의사를 표시하거나 제공을 약속하는 행위를 하면 이 규정에 따라 처벌된다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Regardless of whether approval for the establishment of the association has been obtained or when it was obtained, if any person, in connection with the selection of a specialized maintenance business operator for maintenance projects, commits an act of expressing an intention to provide money, goods, etc. or promising to provide them, he or she must be regarded as being punished under this provision.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What acts, in fact, constitute an expression of an intention to provide money or the like, or a promise to provide it, in connection with the selection of a specialised management business operator?
A later decision defining what conduct amounts to an expression of an intention to provide money or a promise to provide it in connection with the selection of a specialised management business operator would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to the current Article 54(8)(i) of the Act, or new facts in the file showing what the defendant's words and acts were and when they were made.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the judgment as setting a new standard for the prohibition, while the independent reading does not record whether precedent exists.
조합설립인가를 받았는지 여부나 그 시기와 상관없이, 누구든지 정비사업전문관리업자의 선정과 관련하여 금품 등 제공의사를 표시하거나 제공을 약속하는 행위를 하면 이 규정에 따라 처벌된다고 보아야 한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “What acts, in fact, constitute an expression of an intention to provide money or the like, or a promise to provide it, in connection with the selection of a specialised management business operator?” vs Independent “What connection between an offer of benefits and the selection of a professional redevelopment manager is sufficient to trigger the prohibition?”
The primary reading asks which acts in fact amount to expressing an intention to provide benefits or promising them. The independent reading asks what degree of connection to the selection is needed to trigger the prohibition.
조합설립인가를 받았는지 여부나 그 시기와 상관없이, 누구든지 정비사업전문관리업자의 선정과 관련하여 금품 등 제공의사를 표시하거나 제공을 약속하는 행위를 하면 이 규정에 따라 처벌된다고 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 Daegu District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 11 December 2024 (2023No4305), held on the same reasoning that the defendant was punishable whether or not the association of ○○○ housing maintenance project had received approval for its establishment when the defendant expressed an intention to provide money to its chair in connection with the selection of a specialised management business operator. It rejected the defendant's argument on that point and left in place the first-instance judgment convicting the defendant on the indictment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Reading the reasons of the judgment below against the settled law and the lawfully admitted evidence, it held that the court below had not departed from the limits of the free evaluation of evidence, nor misunderstood the meaning of the selection of a specialised management business operator or the elements of Article 54(7)(i) of the former Act. With the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices it dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- An act that has no connection with the selection of a specialised management business operator, since the prohibition attaches only to conduct in connection with that selection.
- Conduct that is neither an expression of an intention to provide money or the like nor a promise to provide it, since the provision names those two forms of act.
- An act governed by the Act as amended by Act No. 18831 of 3 February 2022, where the corresponding provision is now Article 54(8)(i) and the decision applied the earlier text.
Record verification notes
Fix the version of the Act first: this decision applied the text before the amendment of 3 February 2022 (Act No. 18831), and the corresponding provision in force now is Article 54(8)(i). Then match the conduct charged against the two forms the provision names, an expression of intention and a promise to provide, and confirm that it related to the selection of the operator. The timing of the act relative to approval for establishment does not decide the matter under this decision.
From the official text
Points at issue
정비사업전문관리업자 선정과 관련하여 금품 등의 제공의사를 표시하거나 제공을 약속하는 행위를 금지하는 구 빈집 및 소규모주택 정비에 관한 특례법 제54조 제7항 제1호의 규정 취지 및 이를 위반하면 금품 등 제공의사를 표시할 당시 토지 등 소유자 조합이 조합설립인가를 받았는지 여부와 관계없이 위 규정에 따라 처벌되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the purport of Article 54 (7), subparagraph 1 of the former Special Act on Empty Houses and Small-Scale Housing Maintenance, which prohibits acts of expressing an intention to provide money, goods, etc. or promising to provide them in connection with the selection of a specialized maintenance business operator for maintenance projects, and whether a person who violates it is punished under the said provision regardless of whether the association of owners of land, etc. had obtained approval for the establishment of the association at the time of expressing the intention to provide money, goods, etc. (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
구 빈집 및 소규모주택 정비에 관한 특례법(2022. 2. 3. 법률 제18831호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 ‘소규모주택정비법’이라 한다) 제54조 제7항 제1호는 누구든지 정비사업전문관리업자의 선정과 관련하여 금품 등 제공의사를 표시하거나 제공을 약속하는 행위를 하여서는 안 된다고 규정하고 있고, 같은 법 제59조 제2호는 이를 위반한 자를 처벌하고 있다. 이는 정비사업전문관리업자 선정 과정의 투명성과 공정성을 제고하여 재개발·재건축 수주시장의 혼탁·과열을 방지하고 토지 등 소유자 등 이해당사자들 사이의 분쟁을 예방하기 위한 것이다. 이러한 소규모주택정비법 규정의 문언 및 내용, 입법 취지 등에 비추어 보면, 조합설립인가를 받았는지 여부나 그 시기와 상관없이, 누구든지 정비사업전문관리업자의 선정과 관련하여 금품 등 제공의사를 표시하거나 제공을 약속하는 행위를 하면 이 규정에 따라 처벌된다고 보아야 한다.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
구 빈집 및 소규모주택 정비에 관한 특례법(2022. 2. 3. 법률 제18831호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제54조 제7항 제1호(현행 제54조 제8항 제1호 참조), 제59조 제2호
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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