(b) Where a construction engineer's license is granted by borrowing a construction engineer's license pocketbook and grounds for revocation of license;

(c) Revocation of a construction business license by reason of illegal means, and whether administrative agencies have discretion;

(d) Method of hearing procedures under Article 42 of the Construction Business Act; and

(b) Where a constructor has obtained a construction engineer's license by pretending that he/she satisfies the standards for holding technical capability among the standards for construction engineer's license by borrowing a construction engineer's license pocket book at the time of application for a construction engineer's license, although it falls under the grounds for business suspension, it shall be limited to "when he/she obtains a construction engineer'

C. According to the proviso of Article 38(1) of the Construction Business Act, when a construction business license is granted by illegal means, a construction business license should be revoked, and there is no room for the licensing authority to decide whether to cancel the license.

D. In a case where the Plaintiff, prior to the revocation of the instant license, entered a request for attendance for the hearing of the Defendant (Seoul Special Metropolitan City) and made and submitted to the public official concerned a statement about the process of acquiring the instant construction license, etc. and the technical ability was insufficient, but supplemented additional technicians, it can be deemed that the Defendant had gone through the hearing under Article 42 of the Construction Business Act.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff entered Korea Land Development Corporation from March 27, 1979 when he applied for a license for landscaping planting and landscaping facility construction business, and the non-party 1, the chief of the audit division of the above construction, was employed by the plaintiff management company on August 30, 1980 and applied for the license of this case by attaching a false membership certificate of the full-time construction engineer as a construction engineer and a certificate of construction engineer holding the construction engineer's possession, etc. as well as at the time of the application for the license of this case, and that the plaintiff obtained the license of this case from the defendant who knew that all of them were true and correct. In light of the evidence cooking process conducted by the court below in the above fact-finding, there is no illegality

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defect, which became the ground for revocation, was cured because the plaintiff employed Nonparty 2 before the defendant's revocation of this case, supplemented the landscape technician. Even if so, the ground for revocation of this case was based on the use of unlawful means, not on the ground of falling short of the licensing standard, and even if it was newly employed as a construction engineer and supplemented the defect which is the ground for revocation of license at the time of license, it cannot be viewed that the defect, which is the ground for revocation of license, was cured (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu69 delivered on July 13, 1982).

3. According to Article 37 (2) 9 of the Construction Business Act, a constructor's act of leasing a construction engineer's license pocketbook is defined as a ground for business suspension, or a constructor's act of obtaining a construction engineer's license by entering the construction engineer's license pocketbook as being employed at the time of application for a construction business license, and making it false that the constructor satisfies the standards for technical capacity possession among the standards for a construction engineer's license, and thus constitutes "when a construction engineer's license is granted by illegal means" under Article 38 (1) 5 of the Construction Business Act, and the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and the decision of the court below is without merit, and the loan of a construction engineer's license pocketbook is merely a ground for business suspension under Article 37 (2) 9 of the Construction Business Act, and the illegal means under Article 38 (1) 5 of the same Act is merely an independent opinion of the court below that there is an affirmative deception such as forgery of documents other than the construction engineer's license pocketbook loan.

4. According to the proviso of Article 38(1) of the Construction Business Act, when a construction business license is granted by illegal means, a construction business license should be revoked, and it is obvious that the licensing authority has no room for discretion to choose whether to revoke the license. Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just and the decision of the court below that the decision of the purport is justified and the decision of the court below is not appropriate, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to

5. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff entered the Seoul Office of Seoul (the judgment of the court below is the construction division, but it is clear that it is a clerical error) on April 9, 1981 when receiving a request for attendance from the defendant for a hearing, and stated the relevant public official about the process of acquiring the construction license of this case and Nonparty 1 is a full-time engineer, and that the non-party 1 is a full-time engineer, and that he additionally supplemented the one engineer, and determined that the defendant had completed the hearing procedure under Article 42 of the Construction Business Act. Upon examining the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the hearing procedure under Article 42 of the Construction Business Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)