Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2, 5-2 through 7, 1-1 through 16, 2-2, 6-1 through 3 of Eul evidence 6, 11, and 11.

A. On December 30, 1982, the Plaintiff obtained each construction business license for the facility construction business and the water supply and drainage facility construction business from the Defendant as the former 12-49, the latter 13-39, and the former 13-39.

B. On October 27, 1994, the term of validity of each of the above licenses expired on December 30, 1994, the Plaintiff filed an application for renewal of each of the above construction businesses licenses with the Defendant on October 27, 1994, and filed a report on Nonparty Kim Jong-sik, Kim Jong-ju, Park No-cheon, 000, and Hayoung as a full-time technician in conformity with the construction business license standards. On December 28, 1994, the Plaintiff obtained a renewed license from the Defendant for each of the above construction businesses licenses from December 29, 194 to December 28, 1999.

C. After that, the defendant prepared and submitted a false document as if he had not employed or had had the plaintiff employed the above Kiman-type, Kim Jong-ju, Park No-cheon, and Oak-young as a technician and had the plaintiff work full-time as a technician, and had the plaintiff believe that the plaintiff satisfies the technical requirements for each of the above construction businesses licenses, thereby having the defendant renewed each of the above construction business licenses. This constitutes a ground for cancellation of the license under Article 52 (1) 1 of the Construction Business Act from August 12, 1995 to September 12, 1995, following the hearing procedure under Article 54 (1) of the Construction Business Act, and revoked each of the above construction business licenses against the plaintiff on November 13, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case").

2. The legality of disposition.

A. The defendant asserts that the above disposition of cancellation of a construction business license is legitimate under the relevant laws and regulations, and the disposition of this case was made by the defendant who is not authorized to revoke a construction business license under the Construction Business Act, and thus, it is unlawful. ② The above Kim Jong-dae and Oi-young among the construction engineers reported by the plaintiff to the defendant was not an employee of the plaintiff at the time of the application, but it is merely erroneous that the plaintiff's female employee was not an employee of the plaintiff at the time of the application, but the above Kim Jong-sik and O-cheon, which was reported as an employee of the plaintiff company, was also the defendant's mistake as well as the above fact that the plaintiff was a full-time employee of the plaintiff company at the time of the application for renewal of the above construction business license, and the above disposition of this case was held as a construction engineer Kim Chang-nam, Lee Chang-ho, and construction machine operator as a full-time employee. However, although the above reporter was not reported with a full-time employee other than those of the above reporters, it is unlawful under Article 7 of the Construction Business Act and Article 10 (1) [1) of the above.

B. The plaintiff's above assertion is examined in the following order.

(1) According to Article 57(1) of the Construction Business Act and Article 53(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, the Minister of Construction and Transportation’s authority of cancellation of construction business is delegated to the competent Mayor/Do Governor. However, according to Article 95 of the Local Autonomy Act, Article 4 of the Regulations on Delegation and Entrustment of Administrative Authority, and Article 2 [Attachment 1] of the Rules on Delegation of Administrative Authority, the authority of the Gwangju City Mayor on cancellation of construction business is re-entrusted to the head of each competent Si/Gun/Gu, and it is apparent that the Defendant has the authority to the instant disposition. Therefore, the Plaintiff’

(2) Article 6(1) of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 4868 of Jan. 5, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides for a license for construction business by category of business. The license for construction business shall be renewed every five years, and if not renewed, the license shall lose its effect. Article 7 provides that technical capacity, capital, facilities and equipment which serve as the standards for the license for construction business and other necessary matters shall be determined by the Presidential Decree. Article 10(1) [Attachment 4] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14710 of Jul. 6, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides for a copy of the license for construction business or construction machine field; Article 6(1) of the same Act provides for a copy of the license for construction business or construction machine field; Article 6(2) of the same Act provides for a new license for construction business by not less than one technician; Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the National Technical Qualifications Act provides for a new license for two or more kinds of facilities;

In full view of the provisions of the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, if an applicant for a construction business license acquires a construction business license by deeming that he/she has technical capability standards under the Construction Business Act by preparing and submitting related documents as if he/she actually employs a construction business license applicant or had no engineer work on a regular basis, this constitutes grounds for cancellation of a construction business license under Article 52 (1) 1 of the above Act. Furthermore, the purpose of the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes strict provisions is to promote the proper construction of construction works and the sound development of the construction business by having a constructor with qualifications and capabilities in each specialized construction work take charge of the construction work, and to ensure the appropriate construction work and the sound development of the construction business. According to Article 6 (6) of the above Act, Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, and Article 3 (2) 8 of the above Enforcement Decree of the Construction Business Act, even if he/she applied for a construction business license, he/she imposes an obligation to submit data meeting the standards for the construction business license, and in principle, the applicant should examine the standards only by the data submitted to the applicant.

In light of the above evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, 9, and 13-13-3, 20 Eul evidence Nos. 25-1 and 25-2, and the whole purport of the testimony (excluding the above Kim Jong-ho, Lee Ho-ho, and Kim Chang-nam's testimony), the non-party 2 who is the representative director of the plaintiff was found to have been guilty of the above evidence Nos. 3, 1, 4, 7, 9, and 13-3, and the above evidence Nos. 1, 13-1, 20-3 and 9-1, and the above evidence Nos. 1, 9-1 and 9-2 were found to have been found to have been found to have been guilty of the above evidence No. 9-1, and the non-party 2's application for the renewal of the above evidence No. 9-2 and the above evidence No. 1, 30-3, the above evidence No.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's act of obtaining the renewal of the above construction business license constitutes a case where the plaintiff has obtained the license by deceit or other unlawful means as stipulated in Article 52 (1) 1 of the Construction Business Act without relation to whether the plaintiff had a technician meeting the standards under the Construction Business Act at the time of the above application for the license. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate, and therefore the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is dismissed on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing plaintiff.

Judges Jeondo-young (Presiding Judge)