Whether the place where goods are sold to consumers repeatedly during the period of temporary opening constitutes a place of business where a door-to-door seller is obligated to report on changes under Article 4(3) of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act

According to Article 4(3) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), when the location, etc. of a workplace is changed from among matters reported by door-to-door sales business operators, they shall submit to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu a report on the change of door-to-door sales business along with documents proving the changed matters to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu. Article 2(1) of the Act provides that the term "door-to-door sales" means that a seller of goods or a person who provides services at a cost-to-door sales business solicits consumers by visiting a place other than his/her place of business, agency, or other place of business (hereinafter referred to as "place of business") and sells goods or provides services by entering into a contract, and Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act provides that "place of business prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister" means (1) place of business continuously in a fixed place of business, regardless of its name, (2) place of sale or service.

Article 2 subparag. 1, Article 4(3), and Article 62 subparag. 1 of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, Article 2 and Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 2001No6903 delivered on October 31, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Of the facts charged in this case, the summary of the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act was as follows: “In collusion with the defendants, the door-to-door seller did not report to the competent authority when changing the location of the place of business, but did not report the change. From November 28, 200 to December 29, 200, the door-to-door seller reported the door-to-door sales business, and distributed to the outside-door seller, who was not a place of business in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, about a size of 50 square meters, a place of business in the second floor of the off-to-door-to-door Credit Experience site in Seongbuk-dong, Seoul, with a place of business with a size of about 80 square meters in the second floor of the off-to-door Credit Experience site in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, the court below found the defendants not guilty of the remaining part of the off-to-door seller's place of business due to lack of evidence.”

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to Article 4(3) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), when the location, etc. of a workplace is changed as reported by a door-to-door seller, he/she shall submit to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu a report on the change of door-to-door sales business along with documents proving the changed matters to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu. Article 2(1) of the Act provides that the term "door-to-door sales" means a place other than his/her place of business, agency, or other place of business prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister (hereinafter referred to as a "place of business") where a seller of goods or a person who provides services is invited to make a contract and sell goods or provide services by entering into a contract with consumers by means of visit. Article 2(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act provides that "place of business prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister" refers to (1) a place of business continuously in a fixed place of business, regardless of name.

In this case, as the court below duly determines, if the defendants sold the key mountain repeatedly holding that the defendants let the above Enden Line experience room and the second floor room and the second floor room and the second floor room and the second floor of Enmark Foreign Ship Experience site and the second floor are continuously sold, they shall be deemed to fall under the place of business of door-to-door sales business operator, as the place where the sales of the goods are repeated, and the business place of the door-to-door sales business operator shall be deemed to fall under the place of business.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the interpretation and application of Article 4(3) of the Act and Article 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning, that the court below determined that the rest room of the second floor of the above Enden Foreign Ship Experience Center, which has repeatedly sold goods to consumers for two days or more, does not constitute a workplace. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)