(영문) 서울행정법원 2013.8.23.선고 2012구합39568 판결

(1) On May 17, 2010, B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) opened an online site C (D, hereinafter referred to as “C”) and opened an online site sales business, and remodeled B document stores located in Busan, Jin-gu, Busan, and opened F on August 30, 201.

(2) On August 25, 2011, the “Association of Incorporated Association” (hereinafter “Association”) comprised of wholesalers supplying food materials, etc. filed an application for business coordination with the Defendant via H organization pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Act on the Promotion of Collaborative Cooperation between Large Enterprises and Small-Medium Enterprises (amended by Act No. 11173, Jan. 17, 2012; hereinafter “Mutual Cooperation Act”).

(3) On August 31, 2011, the Defendant notified B of the application for business coordination of the Association, and demanded business coordination data. On December 19, 201, the Defendant notified B and the Association of the application for business coordination. On the ground that “C and F documents are recognized as subject to business coordination under the Collaborative Cooperation Act”, the Defendant notified B and the Association of the fact that “F written stores and F documents are recognized as subject to business coordination under the Collaborative Cooperation Act.”

(b) Transfer of C business and decision to commence business coordination against the plaintiff;

(1) B transferred C’s business to the Plaintiff on February 29, 2012. Accordingly, the Association applied for business coordination with the Defendant on May 25, 2012.

(2) On September 26, 2012, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff and the Association of the scope of business coordination related to the second business coordination, etc. on September 26, 2012, that the first self-resolution meeting following the business coordination was held on October 17, 2012, and that the cooperative cooperation plan was shipped off by October 5, 2012 (hereinafter “instant notification”).

(1) B filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Administrative Court (2012Guhap7271) seeking revocation of a decision to commence business coordination against the Defendant. On July 20, 2012, B received a judgment from the above court that “the part seeking revocation of a decision to commence business coordination against C” was dismissed, and that “the decision to commence business coordination with respect to F document points was revoked.”

(2) The Defendant appealed to the Seoul High Court (2012Nu2526) on the revoked portion. On July 26, 2013, the lower court rendered a judgment that “the first instance judgment shall be revoked, dismissed,” which was held by the said court. [The grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute, and the entries in Gap’s 3, 5, 6, 1, 2, 5, 6, 1, 2, 5, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

(1) The instant notification is merely an independent administrative disposition to notify the progress of business coordination under the Collaborative Cooperation Act.

(2) There is no individual, direct, and specific interest seeking revocation solely on the basis of the fact that there is a duty to submit data to determine whether to commence business coordination, and that there is an obligation to attend a meeting of an officer level or higher conciliation committee as a result of the conciliation deliberation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The term "administrative disposition", which is the subject of an appeal litigation, means an act of an administrative agency under public law, which directly causes a change in the specific rights and obligations of citizens, such as ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations, or giving rise to other legal effects, with regard to a specific matter, and must be individually determined according to which the subject, content, procedure, and form satisfies the requirements of establishment or validity (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2799, Dec. 27, 2002).

(2) According to Articles 32, 33, and 40 of the Collaborative Cooperation and Cooperation Act, the defendant may extend the time of acquisition, commencement, or expansion of businesses of the relevant large enterprises through deliberation of the Coordination Council, reduce production items, production facilities, etc., through the announcement of the recommendation if it is deemed necessary in the above process, and if it is deemed necessary, the plaintiff may demand the relevant small or medium enterprises or large enterprises to submit data, enter their offices, etc. for the purpose of the improvement of the competitiveness of the relevant large enterprises, and the defendant's order to commence the procedure of autonomous coordination of the large enterprises' business by providing the legal basis for the improvement of the business coordination between the relevant large enterprises and the small or medium enterprise's organization. However, the defendant is not necessarily required to inform the plaintiff of the fact that it is necessary to autonomously submit data for the improvement of the business coordination of the relevant small or medium enterprises, but the defendant is not obligated to submit data for the improvement of the legal status of the small or medium enterprise's business coordination through the consultation process.

Even if a decision to commence business coordination was rendered, the opposite interpretation of Article 32 (1) of the Collaborative Cooperation Act provides that "if a large enterprise, etc. takes over, commences or expands its business, and thus it is not recognized that a large enterprise, etc. significantly adversely affects or is likely to affect the management stability of small and medium enterprises by reducing the demand for goods or services supplied by a large number of small and medium enterprises in the relevant business type," the decision to commence business coordination is made provisionally on the basis of a rough examination of facts and legal relations, and the decision to commence business coordination is made provisionally based on the general examination. 6 Even if the decision to commence business coordination is made upon the request to submit materials or investigation, the defendant should determine whether the case falls under "where it is deemed that a large number of small and medium enterprises, etc. are likely to adversely affect the management stability of small and medium enterprises by reducing the demand for goods or services supplied by the small and medium enterprises in the relevant business type, it is difficult to deem that the plaintiff's business has significantly affected the management stability of the small and medium enterprises." This is not desirable to recognize the above decision to be applied for business coordination at an early stage.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.