[영업정지처분무효확인][판례집불게재]
Korean Construction Business (Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The Minister of Construction and Transportation
April 27, 1983
On December 26, 1980, the defendant confirmed that a business politics disposition against the plaintiff on December 26, 1980 is invalid.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The purport of the disposition is the same.
If Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 (Notice of Business Suspension) 1-2, 3 (Notice of Change) Gap evidence Nos. 2-1-2, 5-2 (Written Request for Examination Nos. 1-2 (Written Request for Submission of Written Evidence Nos. 1-3 (Written Request for Examination Nos. 1-2) without dispute and evidence Nos. 4-3 (Written Request for Examination Nos. 13) were included in the evidence Nos. 1-1-2, 1-3 (Notice of Change)-2, 1-2, 2-3 (Written Request for Disposition Nos. 1-2, 3-2, 1979, and the defendant again issued a request for the change of the above construction period No. 1-2, 3-2, 1979 to the 1-2, 3-year period from the 197th anniversary of the above construction period to the 1-year period without permission of the plaintiff 1-2, 3, 97.
The plaintiff's employees of the plaintiff company, which is the head of the above construction site, carried out the construction site of the above construction site, Kim Jong-ho Construction Project. The plaintiff, without the plaintiff's permission, carried out the so-called work of removing goods to the non-party construction for convenient mobilization of three sub-soils and efficiency of the above construction project. The business disposition of this case which is premised on the existence of a subcontract agreement between the above plaintiff and Sam-ho Construction is null and void, and even if the plaintiff violated Article 34 (3) of the Construction Business Act, the violation of the above provision was completed around September 1979, and the construction order of this case was executed at the same time without the grounds for suspension of business, and the construction order of this case was concluded for the non-party 1 to the construction site construction site of this case to the non-party 5's new construction site construction site of this case to the non-party 1's new construction site construction site of this case to the non-party 1's new construction site construction site of this case to the non-party 2's new construction site construction site of this case.
According to the above facts, the contract relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party Heavy Construction is not only for the purpose of providing simple labor, but it is interpreted that the contract for the construction of a bridge, a combination of two or more independent construction works, is completed under the responsibility of the subcontractor and the payment of the comments is completed. Thus, the subcontracting of the bridge construction to the non-party company without only a specific license by the plaintiff is in violation of Article 34 (3) of the Construction Business Act.
However, according to the above facts, a subcontract is concluded between the plaintiff and the non-party Heavy Construction Co., Ltd. on September 1979. However, since the contents of the oral contract made on February 24, 1980 were merely documentized, the plaintiff's violation of Article 34 (3) of the Construction Business Act was done on September 1979. Thus, according to Article 38 of the Construction Business Act which was enforced at that time, the violation of Article 34 (1) or (3) is a ground for cancellation of construction business, and the violation of Article 37 (2) of the same year does not constitute a ground for suspension of business, but the violation of the above Article 34 of the Construction Business Act was not a ground for cancellation of business, but a ground for cancellation of business, which was not a ground for cancellation of business, and thus, the disposition of cancellation of business cannot be applied to the plaintiff as a ground for invalidation of the Construction Business Act.
Therefore, the disposition of the suspension of business of this case shall be a disposition of invalidation without legal basis. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of invalidation without determining the remainder of the plaintiff's remaining claims shall be accepted, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party, and it shall be decided as per the Disposition.
may 25, 1983
Judges Yoon Young-young (Presiding Judge) Kim Ho-hoon