The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the provisions of Article 42 of the Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984), when the Minister of Construction and Transportation intends to take a disposition under the provisions of Articles 37 through 39 of the same Act, he shall hold a hearing in advance to the constructor or construction engineer concerned, but if the constructor or construction engineer concerned fails to comply with the hearing without any justifiable reason, he may take a reasonable disposition without holding a hearing.

According to the evidence of the court below's employment, the defendant notified the plaintiff of the date of hearing on August 26, 1983 by determining the date of hearing on August 13:00 pursuant to Article 42 of the above Construction Business Act, but notified the plaintiff again of attendance on October 11, 1983 by extending the date of hearing to 14:00 on October 10, 1983 according to the plaintiff's application for postponement, the plaintiff sent a written request for postponement to the defendant to postpone the date of hearing until October 10, 1983, which is the day immediately before the above date of hearing, and it is recognized that the plaintiff did not appear on the date of the above hearing. Thus, the defendant's disposition of revoking the construction business of this case without a justifiable reason shall be deemed not to have complied with the above hearing, and it shall not

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the hearing procedure under Article 42 of the Construction Business Act, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. We examine both the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3.

According to the provisions of Article 7 (2), (1) and (4) of the National Tax Collection Act, when a person who runs a business with permission, authorization, license or registration, etc. fails to pay national taxes on three or more occasions, the head of a tax office may request the suspension of the business or the cancellation of such permission, and when such a request is made, the competent authorities shall comply with it unless there is any justifiable reason. Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 38 (1) 18 of the Construction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3765 of Dec. 31, 1984), the Minister of Construction and Transportation may cancel the license of construction business or suspend the business for a fixed period of not more than two years.

In light of the purport of the above provisions, when there is a request from the director of the tax office for the suspension of business or for the restriction of the business for the cancellation of the license for the reason of arrears of national taxes by the constructor, the defendant shall comply with it unless there is any justifiable reason. However, even if the request for the restriction of business only requires the cancellation of the license, whether to cancel the license or order the suspension of business for a fixed

However, according to the evidence of employment of the court below, since the plaintiff company did not have the ability to pay national taxes of KRW 1,235,752,744, such as the approval of the court below at the time of the disposition of this case, and the continuation of business was merely an increase in the amount of tax in arrears, the court below held that even if the management of the plaintiff company was improved, a lot of official commendation and meritorious deeds were given to the plaintiff company, and a part of the property was seized for national taxes in arrears, it cannot be deemed an illegal disposition beyond the scope of discretionary power of the plaintiff's revocation of the plaintiff's construction business license, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the omission of judgment, incomplete deliberation, or the scope of discretionary power of administrative actions, such as theory

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

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)