Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Third-party standing to cancel a new pharmacy registration decision
Supreme Court, Sept. 11, 2025, 2024Du34276 (judgment)
Case name: 약국개설등록처분취소[신규 약국개설등록처분 취소소송에서 인근 약국개설자의 원고적격이 문제된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does an existing pharmacy operator who thereby loses all or some of the dispensing opportunities for a medical institution's prescriptions have a legal interest in cancelling another pharmacist's pharmacy registration decision, and how is the risk of infringement of that operator's interest assessed?
Holding
Yes. Article 20(5)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act bar pharmacy registration where a pharmacy and a medical institution stand in a certain spatial relationship, in order to prevent collusion and to share the access to that institution's prescriptions fairly among nearby pharmacy operators, so the interest of an existing pharmacy operator in receiving a fair share of the dispensing opportunities is an individual, direct, concrete interest protected by the enabling provision and related provisions, and an operator who thereby loses all or some dispensing opportunities may seek cancellation of the decision absent special circumstances. Whether that interest may be infringed is judged for each medical institution whose case raises those provisions, by weighing the location, size and operating form of the new and existing pharmacies, the distance and means of access between the institution and each pharmacy, and the distribution of pharmacies nearby. It is not required that the existing operator's main revenue rested on that institution's prescriptions or that the fall in revenue was substantial, and an existing operator whose pharmacy has dispensed on that institution's prescriptions around the date of the decision has standing absent special circumstances.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그러므로 다른 약사에 대한 약국개설등록처분으로 인하여 조제 기회를 전부 또는 일부라도 상실하게 된 기존 약국개설자는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 해당 처분의 취소를 구할 법률상 이익이 있다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, an existing pharmacy operator who has lost all or part of the opportunity to dispense as a result of a pharmacy establishment registration disposition issued to another pharmacist has a legal interest in seeking revocation of that disposition, absent special circumstances.
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
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
약사법 제20조 제5항 제2호, 제3호, 제4호 위반이 문제 되는 개별 의료기관을 기준으로 신설 약국 및 기존 약국의 위치·규모·운영형태, 의료기관과 각 약국 사이의 거리·접근 방법, 인근의 약국 분포 등을 종합적으로 고려해야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
With the individual medical institution at issue as the standard for the violation of Article 20 paragraph (5) subparagraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, the locations, size, and operating forms of the newly established pharmacy and the existing pharmacies, the distances and means of access between the medical institution and each pharmacy, the distribution of nearby pharmacies, and the like must be comprehensively considered.
Factors
- ‘의료기관의 처방약 조제 기회를 공정하게 배분받을 기존 약국개설자의 이익’은 약국개설등록처분의 근거 법규 및 관련 법규에 의하여 보호되는 개별적·직접적·구체적 이익이라고 할 수 있다.
- 조제 기회를 전부 또는 일부라도 상실하게 된 기존 약국개설자는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 해당 처분의 취소를 구할 법률상 이익이 있다.
- 신설 약국 및 기존 약국의 위치·규모·운영형태, 의료기관과 각 약국 사이의 거리·접근 방법, 인근의 약국 분포 등을 종합적으로 고려해야 한다.
- 이때 반드시 기존 약국개설자의 주된 매출이 해당 의료기관이 발행한 처방전에 기초하고 있었다거나 해당 의료기관이 발행한 처방전에 관한 기존 약국개설자의 매출 감소가 상당해야만, 그와 같은 이익이 침해될 우려가 있다고 볼 것은 아니다.
- 그 약국은 신규 약국개설등록처분으로 인하여 해당 의료기관이 발행한 처방전에 대한 조제 기회가 감소할 것이라고 충분히 예상할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
• 'The interest of an existing pharmacy operator in receiving a fair allocation of the opportunity to dispense prescription drugs of a medical institution' may be regarded as an individual, direct, and concrete interest protected by the statutes on which the pharmacy establishment registration disposition is based and by related statutes.
• An existing pharmacy operator who has lost all or part of the opportunity to dispense has a legal interest in seeking revocation of that disposition, absent special circumstances.
• The locations, size, and operating forms of the newly established pharmacy and the existing pharmacies, the distances and means of access between the medical institution and each pharmacy, the distribution of nearby pharmacies, and the like must be comprehensively considered.
• At that time, it is not necessarily the case that such an interest may be regarded as being likely to be infringed only where the main revenue of the existing pharmacy operator was based on prescriptions issued by that medical institution or where the decrease in the revenue of the existing pharmacy operator from prescriptions issued by that medical institution is substantial.
• That pharmacy may sufficiently be expected to foresee that the opportunity to dispense prescriptions issued by that medical institution will decrease due to the new pharmacy establishment registration disposition.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2006. 3. 16. 선고 2006두330 전원합의체 판결, 대법원 2025. 2. 13. 선고 2024두57996 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc Judgment 2006Du330 decided March 16, 2006, Supreme Court Judgment 2024Du57996 decided February 13, 2025, etc., see
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What special circumstances would deprive an existing pharmacy operator of standing to seek cancellation although the new registration reduces the dispensing opportunities issued by the reference medical institution?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court, which must now hear and decide the merits, will show how the standing rule is applied to these buildings and these prescription records. A later decision defining the special circumstances that remove standing, or an amendment to Article 20(5) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act or Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act, 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) · 2026-10-24
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 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “Follows earlier decisions” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary may read the protected-interest and standing analysis as applying established doctrine, while the independent may find the precedent relationship unconfirmable because the supplied text identifies no earlier decision.
대법원 2006. 3. 16. 선고 2006두330 전원합의체 판결, 대법원 2025. 2. 13. 선고 2024두57996 판결 등 참조Raw 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 25 January 2024 (2022Nu70812), found that the plaintiffs' pharmacies and the new pharmacy stood in different buildings, that other pharmacies run by other pharmacists existed in nearby buildings, that the plaintiffs' share of all prescriptions issued by the clinic was only a small fraction, and that their main revenue did not rest on dispensing those prescriptions; a comparison of prescription shares before and after the decision showed no meaningful fall. On that basis it held that being located near the new pharmacy was not enough to show a risk that the plaintiffs' legal position of dispensing independently of the medical institution had been infringed, and dismissed the whole suit for want of standing.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs' pharmacies stood in the building next to or second next to the building housing the clinic and had dispensed several times on prescriptions issued by the clinic around July 2020, so that under the stated rule the plaintiffs had standing to seek cancellation of the decision. It held that standing could not be denied merely because the plaintiffs' main revenue did not rest on the clinic's prescriptions or because the fall in revenue attributable to the new pharmacy was small. The court below thus misapprehended the law on third-party standing in an action to cancel a pharmacy registration decision, an error affecting the judgment, and the whole judgment was reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- An existing pharmacy that has not dispensed anything on a prescription issued by the medical institution in question around the date of the new registration decision, so that a reduction in dispensing opportunities cannot reasonably be expected.
- A case in which special circumstances show that the existing operator would lose no dispensing opportunity, since the standing rule applies only where there are no such circumstances.
- A suit against a registration decision in which no issue arises under Article 20(5)(ii), (iii) or (iv) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act for the medical institution taken as the reference point.
Record verification notes
Fix the reference medical institution first, then set the spatial relation of the new and existing pharmacies to it and the existing pharmacy's dispensing on that institution's prescriptions around the date of the decision, here 15 July 2020. Gather whatever is said to be special circumstances removing standing, and keep the merits separate: the Supreme Court decided only standing and sent the case back for the court below to hear and decide the merits. Test the file against Supreme Court Decision 2006Du330 and Supreme Court Decision 2024Du57996 on what counts as a legally protected interest.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 다른 약사에 대한 약국개설등록처분으로 처방약 조제 기회를 전부 또는 일부 상실하게 된 기존 약국개설자에게 해당 처분의 취소를 구할 법률상 이익이 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극) [2] 신규 약국개설등록처분으로 인해 의료기관의 처방약 조제 기회를 공정하게 배분받을 기존 약국개설자의 이익이 침해될 우려가 있는지 판단하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether an existing pharmacy operator who has lost all or part of the opportunity to dispense prescription drugs as a result of a pharmacy establishment registration disposition issued to another pharmacist has a legal interest in seeking revocation of that disposition (affirmative in principle) / [2] The method of determining whether the interest of an existing pharmacy operator in receiving a fair allocation of the opportunity to dispense prescription drugs of a medical institution is likely to be infringed by a new pharmacy establishment registration disposition
Summary of the holding
[1] 약국개설등록과 관련하여 약사법 제20조 제5항 제2호, 제3호, 제4호는 의료기관과 약국 사이에 일정한 장소적 관련성이 있는 경우 약국을 개설하지 못하도록 하고 있다. 이는 약사법 제23조, 제23조의2, 제24조, 제24조의2, 제26조 등 관련 규정의 체계나 내용 등에 비추어, 의료기관과 담합행위를 할 가능성이 큰 약국의 개설을 금지함으로써 의료기관의 처방전에 대한 인근 약국개설자들의 접근 기회가 공정하게 배분되도록 하고, 나아가 인근 약국개설자가 약사법이 정하는 바에 따라 의료기관으로부터 독립하여 조제업무를 수행할 수 있도록 하는 취지도 있다. 따라서 ‘의료기관의 처방약 조제 기회를 공정하게 배분받을 기존 약국개설자의 이익’은 약국개설등록처분의 근거 법규 및 관련 법규에 의하여 보호되는 개별적·직접적·구체적 이익이라고 할 수 있다. 그러므로 다른 약사에 대한 약국개설등록처분으로 인하여 조제 기회를 전부 또는 일부라도 상실하게 된 기존 약국개설자는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 해당 처분의 취소를 구할 법률상 이익이 있다. [2] 신규 약국개설등록처분으로 인해 의료기관의 처방약 조제 기회를 공정하게 배분받을 기존 약국개설자의 이익이 침해될 우려가 있는지를 판단할 때에는, 약사법 제20조 제5항 제2호, 제3호, 제4호 위반이 문제 되는 개별 의료기관을 기준으로 신설 약국 및 기존 약국의 위치·규모·운영형태, 의료기관과 각 약국 사이의 거리·접근 방법, 인근의 약국 분포 등을 종합적으로 고려해야 한다. 이때 반드시 기존 약국개설자의 주된 매출이 해당 의료기관이 발행한 처방전에 기초하고 있었다거나 해당 의료기관이 발행한 처방전에 관한 기존 약국개설자의 매출 감소가 상당해야만, 그와 같은 이익이 침해될 우려가 있다고 볼 것은 아니다. 만약 기존 약국개설자가 운영하는 약국이, 약사법 제20조 제5항 제2호, 제3호, 제4호 위반이 문제 되는 신규 약국개설등록처분 당시를 전후하여 기준이 되는 개별 의료기관이 발행한 처방전에 따라 의약품을 조제한 적이 있다면, 그 약국은 신규 약국개설등록처분으로 인하여 해당 의료기관이 발행한 처방전에 대한 조제 기회가 감소할 것이라고 충분히 예상할 수 있다. 이러한 경우 기존 약국개설자는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 해당 처분의 취소를 구할 원고적격이 있다.
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] 약사법 제20조 제5항 제2호, 제3호, 제4호, 제23조, 제23조의2, 제24조, 제24조의2, 제26조, 행정소송법 제12조 / [2] 약사법 제20조 제5항 제2호, 제3호, 제4호, 행정소송법 제12조
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