[건설업면허취소처분취소][공1995.2.1.(985),687]
Whether a construction business revocation disposition on the ground of a violation of Article 52 (1) 3 of the former Construction Business Act is likely to deviate from discretion.
In the case of Article 52 (1) 3 of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 4724 of Jan. 7, 1994), it is clear that there is no room for the licensing authority to decide whether to cancel it. Therefore, it is hard to say that the cancellation disposition of the construction business is beyond the scope of discretion on the ground that it violated the above Act.
Article 52 (1) 3 of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 4724 of Jan. 7, 1994); Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Supreme Court Decision 83Nu658 delivered on September 11, 1984 (Gong1984, 1660) 90Nu2826 delivered on November 23, 1990 (Gong1991, 236) 94Nu5045 delivered on December 27, 1994
Korea Agricultural Comprehensive Construction Corporation
The Minister of Construction and Transportation
Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu6845 delivered on June 29, 1994
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, although the non-party did not have concluded a labor contract with the plaintiff company, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff reported the construction engineer status to the defendant and obtained a construction business license by illegal means as if it had concluded a labor contract with the above non-party, is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by incomplete deliberation, such as litigation,
In addition, in the case of Article 52 (1) 3 of the former Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 4075 of Nov. 7, 1994), it is clear that there is no room for the licensing authority to decide whether to cancel it. Thus, the cancellation of construction business license on the ground that it violates the above Article 52 (1) 3 of the former Construction Business Act is in violation of the law, and there is no room to regard it as a deviation from the scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu2826, Nov. 23, 199
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)