공법상 제재사유의 승계에 관한 소고 - 대법원 판례에 대한 분석적 고찰을 중심으로 -

This article analyzes the issue of succession to grounds for administrative sanctions in public law, focusing on decisions of the Supreme Court of Korea. Through this analysis, the study examines the prevailing trends in judicial precedents and explores their implications and limitations. The conclusions drawn from this research are as follows. First, the Supreme Court tends to prioritize context-specific and substantively reasonable outcomes in each individual case over presenting a unified doctrinal standard based on strict legal coherence. This approach aims to deter private parties from evading sanctions and to preserve the public interest by maintaining the structural integrity and normative order of various administrative regimes, such as licensing systems. Second, regarding sanctions of an in rem (object-related) nature and the succession of their grounds, the Court generally recognizes the succession of sanction grounds where there is an explicit statutory provision concerning the succession of legal status, assuming the administrative sanction qualifies as an in rem disposition. Even in the absence of such express provisions, if the administrative sanction in question possesses the characteristics of an in rem disposition, the Court may regard this as a critical basis for recognizing the succession of sanction grounds. Third, with respect to in personam (person-related) dispositions and the succession of sanction grounds, the Court appears inclined to acknowledge succession by interpreting relevant statutory provisions that provide for the succession of legal status—particularly in light of the legislative intent to preserve order in regulated industries and to prevent circumvention of administrative sanctions. However, the scope of such succession is typically confined to matters directly related to the permission or authorization for the relevant business activity, and the principle of culpability (Schuldprinzip) is also factored into the analysis, leading to outcomes that are contextually appropriate. Fourth, the Court generally regards administrative suspension orders under the National Health Insurance Act as in rem dispositions. Accordingly, it has held that a newly established medical institution, following the closure of a predecessor institution, does not succeed to the grounds for the latter’s sanctions, and thus, an administrative suspension order may not be imposed on the new institution. Nevertheless, where there is an explicit statutory basis, the Court appears to have accepted the imposition of an alternative monetary penalty (a fine for negligence) on the new institution in lieu of a suspension order. Fifth, existing jurisprudence remains limited under the constitutional principle of self-responsibility and the principle of statutory reservation, highlighting the need for clear and consistent standards on the succession of grounds for administrative sanctions. Such standards must be supported not only by judicial reasoning but also by legislative and regulatory measures, ensuring that any imposition of disadvantages on transferees for transferors’ violations is justified through legal analysis and broader societal consensus.