[1] The purpose of the succession system to the status of market founders under the former Do and Retail Trade Promotion Act

[2] The case holding that there is no possibility that the succession to the status of the market founder by a separate shop-merchants's association may occur, in case where the shop-owner who already sold the market prior to the permission for the establishment of the market and the sales store was permitted to establish the relevant corporation for the establishment of the market pursuant to the provisions of the law at the time of the establishment of the market

[1] The former Do and Retail Trade Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4889 of Jan. 5, 1995) has a system to succeed to the status of the market opener, the purpose of which is to enable the market opener (person who has obtained a permit for market establishment) to manage the market in a simple manner only by acquiring the status of the market founder or by reporting the succession to the status of the market establishment, in order to promote the proper management of the market that is not discontinued in case where the area exceeding 1/2 of the entire area of the market is sold in excess of the whole area of the market since the market establishment was established by the permission for market establishment.

[2] The case reversing the court below's decision on the ground that there is no possibility that the succession to the status of the market founder by a separate shop-merchants's association will occur in case where the shop-owner who already sold the market in lots before the permission to open the market was granted and the store-sale had been permitted to open the market pursuant to the provisions of the law at the time.

[1] Article 6 (2) of the former Wholesale and Retail Business Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4889 of Jan. 5, 1995), Article 12 (4) of the former Wholesale and Retail Business Promotion Act ( repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Distribution Industry Development Act (Act No. 5327 of Apr. 10, 1997), Article 28 of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act / [2] Article 12 (1) of the former Wholesale and Retail Business Promotion Act (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda to the Distribution Industry Development Act (Act No. 5327 of Apr. 10, 1997), Articles 2 and 28 of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act, Article 8 (4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Wholesale and Retail Business Promotion Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu11544 delivered on June 8, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2026), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9146 delivered on February 24, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1477), Supreme Court Decision 95Da5790 delivered on May 23, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1848), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu18783 delivered on June 26, 1998

Offset Comprehensive Family Co., Ltd.

Nowon-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu5260 delivered on October 30, 1997

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since non-party 2, who purchased 341 stores within the commercial building in this case as indicated in the judgment of the court below, were not entitled to the permission of market establishment under Article 6 (2) 1 of the former Do and Retail Business Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4889 of Jan. 5, 199), the court below established the plaintiff company on May 27, 1989; the plaintiff company obtained the permission of market establishment from the defendant on September 27, 1990 on the ground that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not entitled to the permission of market establishment under Article 9 of the former Do and retail Business Promotion Act (the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not entitled to the permission of market establishment under Article 9 of the Act, and the total area of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 98 square meters of the size of the whole area of the store operated by the non-party 1 and the non-party 58.

However, the purpose of this Act is to manage the market by acquiring the status of the market founder simply on the basis of a report of succession to the status of the market founder, in order to promote the proper management of the market without interruption where the area exceeding 1/2 of the whole area of the market after the market establishment was established by the permission of market establishment (the person who has obtained the permission of market establishment) is not able to efficiently manage the market after the sale of the market, or a person who directly operates the market in excess of 1/2 of the total area of the market as a result of the sale in order to promote the proper management of the market without interruption, or a tenant-merchants's association, etc., even without separately obtaining the permission of market establishment. Therefore, in this case, there is no room for a problem of succession to the status of the market founder if the store owner who already sold the market in lots before the permission of market establishment had already been granted and the store owner who purchased the market in lots establishes a corporation

Nevertheless, in this case where commercial buildings had already been sold prior to the permission for the establishment of the market to the Plaintiff Company, the lower court determined that the disposition to accept the report of this case against the non-party business association was lawful, on the ground that the succession to the status of the market founder by the non-party business association organized by some store operators was allowed. In so doing, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the succession to the status of the market founder by the occupant-merchants's association.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)