[2] The case holding that where a report on succession to the status of a business operator under the former Food Sanitation Act is not made on the grounds that the transferor is unable to receive the certificate of the business operator's personal seal because the former business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operator's business operation continues

[2] Where the transferor fails to report the succession to the status of the business operator under the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 5453 of Dec. 13, 1997), on the ground that the transferor cannot receive the certificate of the business operator's personal seal because the former business operator continues to operate his/her business by fully taking over his/her business from the former business operator but fails to pay the transfer price, whether it is impossible to report the succession to the status of the business operator because the transferor does not deliver the documents necessary for the succession to business, or whether the failure

The court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant, on November 197, 197, took over the above main points from the non-indicted 1's non-indicted salk bar located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with permission of a salk bar and succeeded to the status of the business operator, but did not report the fact of succession to the business to the public authorities within one month from the date of the transfer. In full view of the evidence, the court below found that the defendant concluded a sales contract with the non-indicted salkist in November 1997 to take over all rights of the above salk bar's business operation with the non-indicted 23 million won and later, the non-indicted salk bar did not deliver documents necessary for the above defendant's report of succession to the status of the business operator since he did not pay the money to the non-indicted salk bar at all, and found that the defendant did not report the change of the name of the business operator until he did not report the transfer to the status of the business operator.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, the above judgment of the court below is not acceptable.

Article 25 (1) and (3) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 5453 of Dec. 13, 1997) is not merely an act of accepting a report of succession to the status following the transfer of business under Article 25 (1) and (3) of the former Food Sanitation Act (amended by Act No. 5453 of Dec. 13, 1997), but also an act of cancelling a transferor's business license in substance and establishing a right to operate a business lawfully to the transferee and giving the transferee a legal effect of changing the business license (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do2165 of Oct. 25, 196). Meanwhile, Article 33 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Food Sanitation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare No. 83 of Oct. 19, 198) provides that a person who intends to report succession to the status of a business operator pursuant to Article 25 (3) of the former Food Sanitation Act shall not submit a certificate of succession or a certificate of succession.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the purport of the relevant statutes, a person who succeeds to the status of a business operator by taking over a business from a business operator under the former Food Sanitation Act, regardless of whether he/she pays the price or issues a certificate of the seal impression, shall report the succession to the status according to the prescribed procedures within one month from the date of actual acquisition of the business, and if he/she continues to engage in the business received without filing such report, the obligation to report under the above Food Sanitation Act shall be interpreted as not fulfilling

According to the facts found by the court below, the defendant was unable to report according to the procedure prescribed in the above law because he did not receive the certificate of the transferor's personal seal because he did not fully take over the business from the previous business operator and continue to conduct the business, but did not pay the transferor's business, and in such factual relations, it is clear in light of the above legal principles that it is impossible for the defendant to report the succession to the status of the business operator on the ground that the transferor does not deliver the documents necessary for the succession to business

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that there is no evidence as to the fact that the defendant did not report the succession to the status of business operator despite the fact that he could otherwise report the succession to the status of business operator under the former Food Sanitation Act, and there is an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the report of succession to the status of business operator under the former Food Sanitation Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as

3. Therefore, the non-guilty portion of the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)