[전기공사업면허취소처분취소][공1989.6.1.(849),766]
The validity of the license where a fine is imposed for a violation of the Electrical Construction Business Act before obtaining the license for the electrical construction business.
When a person is sentenced to a fine or a heavier punishment in violation of the Electrical Construction Business Act, the person is disqualified from obtaining the construction business license under Article 8 subparag. 3 of the same Act. However, even if the person is sentenced to a fine for the previous violation after obtaining the license, the license cannot be deemed as being void or invalidated as a matter of course. However, the administrative agency can only revoke or withdraw the license
Article 8 of the Electrical Construction Business Act
[Judgment of the court below]
Do Governor of Chungcheongbuk-do
Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu857 delivered on January 28, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant litigation performer.
According to the provisions of Article 8 (3) of the Electrical Construction Business Act, when a person is sentenced to a fine or heavier punishment for a violation of this Act, he is disqualified for obtaining the construction business license, but it cannot be deemed that the license is void or invalidated as a matter of course on the ground that the person was sentenced to a fine prior to obtaining the license after obtaining the license. However, the administrative agency can only revoke or withdraw the license on the ground that the license
The decision of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the defect of administrative disposition, such as the theory of lawsuit.
2. We examine both the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3.
The judgment of the court below is just in holding that the disposition of the administrative disposition is an illegal disposition that significantly deviates from the scope of discretion because the plaintiff's license is revoked in comparison with the public interest needs and the disadvantage suffered by the plaintiff in accordance with the principle of public interest, the principle of equality, and the principle of proportionality. However, in light of the facts acknowledged by the court below, the court below is just in holding that the disposition of the administrative disposition is an illegal disposition that significantly deviates from the scope of discretion, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on discretionary power or incomplete deliberation, as alleged in the arguments. All arguments are without merit.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)