Article 25(1) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 5099 of Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the transferee shall succeed to the status of the business operator when the person who has obtained permission for the business transfers the business, and Article 25(3) provides that the person who succeeds to the status of the business operator shall report it to the permission-granting authority within one month.

Here, the act of a permitting agency accepting a report of succession to the status following the transfer of business pursuant to Article 25(3) of the Act does not merely mean the act of simply accepting a report that the transferee succeeded to the business by the legal effect of the transfer of business that has already occurred between the transferor and the transferee through the legal effect of the transfer of business under private law, but also the act of cancelling the transferor's business permission in substance and establishing the transferee's right to legally operate the business, which causes the legal effect of the change of the business permitr (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu1544, Jun. 8, 1993; 94Nu9146, Feb. 24, 1995). Accordingly, the transfer of business as stipulated in each of the above provisions of the law can not be included in the lease of business in terms of the meaning or nature of the text.

Although the reasoning of the judgment below is inappropriate, it is justified in the conclusion that the business transfer stipulated in the above provisions of each of the above provisions does not include the business lease. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)