[전기공사업면허취소처분취소][공1989.2.15.(842),245]
Whether the grounds for revocation of the license may be the case where a fine is imposed after the act of violation of the Electrical Construction Business Act prior to the issuance of the license for the electrical construction business (affirmative)
Where a fine is imposed on a violation of the Electrical Construction Business Act before the issuance of the license for an electrical construction business operator due to the failure to comply with Article 8 subparagraph 3 of the same Act that provides for the grounds for disqualification of the electrical construction business operator, and thus the license cannot be deemed to be naturally invalidated or invalidated due to the fact that the fine is imposed, but the competent authority may withdraw the license on the grounds of the change of the facts after the disposition
Article 8 of the Electrical Construction Business Act
Plaintiff
Do Governor of Chungcheongbuk-do
Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu670 delivered on October 26, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
As to the Grounds of Appeal:
As discussed in this case, although the Electrical Construction Business Act does not provide for any provision on the case where a violation of the same Act prior to the issuance of a constructor's license is sentenced to a fine after the above license, it shall not be deemed that the license is void or invalidated as a matter of course due to the fact of fine acceptance because it does not comply with Article 8 subparagraph 3 of the same Act, which provides for the grounds for disqualification of a constructor. Therefore, in the case of this case where a ground under Article 8 subparagraph 3 of the same Act occurred after the Plaintiff obtained a constructor's license, the lower court determined that the Defendant may cancel the license (the withdrawal from the course) on the ground of the change of such factual relations after the license was issued shall not be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the defect of an administrative disposition such
In addition, even in the revocation of a license that means the withdrawal of lecture, when an administrative act is established, a new legal order is formed based on the establishment of a new legal order, and in particular, when making profits to the other party such as permission, license, patent, etc., such revocation is always an infringement on the people's vested rights or freedom. Therefore, from the perspective of maintaining the legal order and protecting the rights and interests of the other party, it cannot be revoked without permission on the sole ground that the revocation authority has a ground for cancellation, and the decision of revocation shall be made by comparing and balancing the necessity of the public interest to be revoked and the disadvantages to the other party due to the revocation, etc., and by comparing and balancing the facts as described in the reasoning, the objection and the revocation of the license against the plaintiff shall not be necessary for the public interest to be revoked, rather than for the public interest to be revoked, and it is reasonable to judge that it is an excessive disadvantage to the plaintiff, and that it is unlawful from a considerable deviation of the legitimate scope of discretion, and thus, it cannot be said that there
It is without merit that this appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)